DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

COLLECTION OF MATERIAL
natural resources and energy law
SUSTAINIBILITY

AND

CONSERVATION

OF

NATURAL

RESOURCES

SUBMITTED TO: MRS.Shakuntala sangam

(Associate Prof. of law)
SUBMITTED BY: abhishek singh sinsinwar
SEMESTER viii (ROLL NO. 05)

Green politics

IS JAIRAM RAMESHS ACTIVIST STYLE HURTING DEVELOPMENT?

GUEST COLUMN - Nilmadhab Mohanty
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, to quote eminent economist Prof. Jagdish
Bhagwati, is an extraordinary politician with terrific common sense, an acute
intellect, an insatiable intellectual curiosity, boldness of vision and articulation in
speech and writing. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that he is increasingly
perceived as a person who, by his official actions, is pushing hostility to economic
development in the country. Perhaps it is his working style and the manner in which he
seeks to enforce the countrys environment laws that has over time created for him such an
image.
Everyone agrees that industrial, mining and infrastructure projects must obtain necessary
forest and environmental clearances before starting construction. Forest conservation and
environment protection laws have laid down definite legal procedures for securing such
clearances. These procedures, in particular the environment impact assessment system
prescribed in the 2006 notification under the environment protection law, is meant to be a
fair, objective and balanced arrangement for the evaluation of proposals submitted for
environmental clearance. To insulate the process from bias and political influence, many
countries have autonomous and professional environment protection agencies to make the
decisions in such cases.
Unfortunately this has not happened in our country. Instead a multi-disciplinary environment
assessment committee comprising technical and professional persons with relevant expertise
is supposed to examine the proposals through various processes including scoping, public
consultation and appraisal.
The environment minister is required to pass a final (reasoned) order on their
recommendations, but it can create confusion if, while a project is still under the scrutiny of
the technical assessment committee, there is a premature airing of views and engagement in
public debates, as seems to have happened in the case of the Navi Mumbai airport project.
While the location of a new airport at Navi Mumbai may perhaps be justified, the average
citizen, fed by media reports, is left to wonder how a project that was objected to on the
grounds that it would harm the environment through destruction of large tracts of mangroves
and damage the local river system was suddenly found to be environmentally clear! How is
it, one may ask, that such a compromise (covering even the forest rights issue) was not
possible in the case of, say, the bauxite mining project in Niyamgiri in the Opposition-ruled
Orissa although the project had earlier received environment clearance and also forest
clearance from the countrys apex court and considerable investment had gone into the setting
up of an aluminium refinery there? In fact, some knowledgeable persons allege that the
negative decision in respect of the project was fast-tracked through a series of actions from
June-August 2010 that helped the main ruling party at the Centre to claim credit as the
champion of tribal rights in a political rally held at Niyamgiri in August.
Such actions are bound to compromise the integrity of the environment impact assessment
system and the credibility of agencies involved in the forest and environment clearance
procedures.
There is also a growing perception that the environment clearance system is being run in an
arbitrary manner reminiscent of the dreaded license-permit raj. Unlike the old industrial
licensing, environmental clearance procedures are not about approving or rejecting a

proposal; these are about balancing the needs of development with those of conservation. The
primary purpose of these clearances is to anticipate and avoid or mitigate environmental
consequences of development projects and bring about a project outcome that balances
developmental needs with environmental integrity.
This means that to the maximum extent possible the project proponents should be allowed,
even guided, to correct the perceived deficiencies and take mitigating measures; and their
considerable difficulties and past developments and efforts in respect of a project must be
appreciated and evaluated before taking any negative decision.
Instead, the preferred method appears to be to serve dramatic show cause notices and stop
work orders that have caused a setback to a few large projects. Lavasa Corporation has even
alleged that the show cause notice recently issued to them was without valid jurisdiction and
in violation of the principles of natural justice and that considerable development work done
by them over a six-year period had been ignored.
In the case of the $12-billion steel project of the South Korean firm Posco near Paradip, there
have been numerous flip flops; clearances given earlier have either been withdrawn or frozen,
panels and committees are engaged in conflicting recommendations and the state government
has been slapped with a stop work order in an arbitrary manner, ignoring the numerous
difficulties that project and local authorities nowadays face in setting up large industrial
development projects. This is the position a full five years after Posco signed an agreement
with the Orissa government to set up the plant and the central government authorities
concerned including the Prime Ministers Office gave their nod!
One suspects that a large part of the turbulence originates from a desire to be seen as a
champion of so-called social causes. Some people even feel that social and environmental
activists and their sympathisers have an undue influence on the decision-making processes
concerning environmental consequences of development projects. In reality, however,
environmental and social activists are lobbyists for their respective causes including the
environment just as project proponents and state governments are advocates of development
projects.
A balance has to be struck between their differing points of view and the public agency
handling environment clearance must play the role of an honest broker between the
competing groups instead of taking sides. One is not sure if there is any appreciation for such
governance niceties. For, Lavasa Corporation has also complained that the show cause notice
that was sent to them recently was issued on the basis of unverified allegations made by a few
political activists to whom the information about the proposed action was also leaked. If true,
such action can only cause confusion and dismay among investors.
In this rather confusing scenario, one can only hope that there will be timely coursecorrection so as to counter the growing impression that instead of seeking to bring about a
balance between development and the environment, Rameshs ministry is fast becoming an
agency to sabotage the countrys growth.
(The author, a former secretary to the government of India, is presently an honorary senior
fellow at the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi)