Green Files, a quarterly newsletter compiled by iCED Jaipur, is meant for circulation in IA&AD. This

newsletter highlights issues on environment and sustainable development which can enable audit

offices identify areas of audit concern. It comprises results of recent environmental conferences-

national & international; “state in focus” where environment issues in a state are highlighted;

critical appraisal of national environmental acts; snapshots of recent news on environment from

across India; Supreme Court judgements on environment issues as well as recent national and

international audit reports pertaining to environment and sustainable development.

We look forward to your suggestions to make Green Files more relevant. Contributions to the

newsletter are also welcome. These can be mailed to iced@cag.gov.in.

Contents

I. Second meeting of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF-2) - 2014

2

II. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India & Others on 6 July, 2011 (Lafarge case)

3

III. Critical discussion of rules/laws: Environment Impact Assessment notifications

8

IV. Environment news snapshots from across India 12

V. State in Focus: Madhya Pradesh 16

VI. Audit Report: Karnataka: Audit Report on Solid Waste Management in Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for the year 2014

21

VII. International Audit Report: Brazil: Internalization of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements signed at Rio-92

24

Green Files

Newsletter on Environment audit and sustainable development issues

International Centre for Environment Audit and

Sustainable Development (iCED)

2 | P a g e

I. Second meeting of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF-2) - 2014

1) Background

The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable

Development (HLPF) is the main United

Nations platform dealing with sustainable

development. The establishment of the HLPF

had been called for by the United Nations

Conference on Sustainable Development

(UNCSD or Rio+20) in June 2012 in its

outcome document, The Future We Want.

The outcome document said “We decide to

establish a universal intergovernmental high-

level political forum, building on the

strengths, experiences, resources and

inclusive participation modalities of the

Commission on Sustainable Development

(CSD), and subsequently replacing the

Commission. The HLPF shall follow up on the

implementation of sustainable

development.” HLPF was to meet every four

years under the auspices of the UN General

Assembly at the level of Heads of State and

Government; and every year under the

auspices of United Nations Economic and

Social Council (ECOSOC) to be attended by

the representatives of member states and

other stake holders.

The inaugural session of the HLPF took place

in September 2013. The second meeting of

the HLPF on Sustainable Development under

the auspices of the ECOSOC was held at the

UN Headquarters in New York from 30 June -

9 July 2014. The Forum was attended by the

representatives of 193 Member States,

intergovernmental organizations and other

entities and representatives of the UN

system, as well as representatives of Major

Groups and other stakeholders. The theme of

the meeting was “Achieving the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) and charting the

way for an ambitious post-2015 development

agenda including the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs)”.

2) Objectives of the conference

Ensuring continued participation of civil

society in the work of the United Nations on

sustainable development and the post-2015

development agenda.

Shaping the HLPF as a platform where actors

from the economic, social and environmental

spheres come together to steer progress towards

sustainable development.

Reviewing and implementation of the post-

2015 development agenda.

Charting pathways to the Future We Want.

Preparing the forum for 2016.

Strengthening science-policy links for

reviewing progress on sustainable development.

Launching the 10-Year Framework of

Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and

Production.

Improving governance of the SDGs through

Improved Mechanism for Engagement of the

Major Groups.

Promoting Resource Efficiency for

Sustainable Urban Development.

Readying Countries for Implementing the

Post-2015 Development Agenda and Global SDGs.

3) Issues discussed

It was discussed how the profit-driven private

sector could contribute to sustainable

development in an effective and accountable

manner; and whether innovative finance

could be predictable and stable. Also

discussed were incentives; legislation instead

of voluntary compliance; standards;

transparency; rating and ranking

3 | P a g e

performance by the private sector; and

reviewing tax treaties.

It was highlighted that access to technology

for sustainable consumption and production

(SCP) is an essential requirement for the

fulfilment of basic needs; the essential

linkage between SCP and climate policies;

and the importance of maintaining SCP as a

stand-alone goal despite being a cross-cutting

issue.

4) Outcomes

A ministerial declaration was adopted, the

salient points of the declaration are as under:

Implementation of a post-2015

development agenda should take into

consideration the special challenges and needs of

the least developed countries, landlocked

developed countries, small island developing

States and African countries, as well as the specific

challenges that many middle-income countries

face. Conflict and post-conflict countries will also

require special attention, in order to address their

specific challenges.

Reaffirm the Programme of Action for the

Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011-

20 (Istanbul Programme of Action1).

Address the gaps in achievement of the

MDGs.

Operationalisation of the 10-year

framework of programmes on sustainable

consumption and production patterns was

welcomed.

It was reiterated that the HLPF shall

conduct regular reviews, starting in 2016, on

the follow-up to and implementation of

sustainable development commitments and

objectives, including those related to the

means of implementation, within the

1 Charts out the international community’s vision and strategy for the sustainable development of Least

context of the post-2015 development

agenda and that these reviews shall be

voluntary, while encourage reporting, and

shall include developed and developing

countries, as well as relevant United Nations

entities, provide a platform for partnerships

and build upon the experiences and lessons

learned.

Sources:- http://www.iisd.ca/hlpf/hlpf2/intro.html

http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb3309e.pdf

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1

556

II. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India & Others on 6 July, 2011 (Lafarge case)

1) Background

Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. (LSCL), a company

incorporated under the laws of Bangladesh

set up a cross-border cement manufacturing

project at Chhatak in Bangladesh. This

cement manufacturing project wanted to tap

a captive limestone mine of 100 Ha located at

Phlangkaruh, Nongtrai, and East Khasi Hills

District in the State of Meghalaya. The entire

produce of this mine was to be used for

production of cement at the manufacturing

plant at Chhatak, Bangladesh under the

agreement/arrangement between

Government of India and Government of

Bangladesh. There is no other source of

limestone for LSCL except for the captive

limestone mine situated at Nongtrai, East

Khasi Hills District in the State of Meghalaya.

Lum Mawshun Minerals Private Limited

(LMMPL), a company incorporated in India,

proposed to set up an open cast limestone

mine at Phlangkaruh, Nongtrai, Shella

Confederacy in the district of East Khasi Hills.

Developed Countries for the next decade with a strong focus on developing their productive capacities.

4 | P a g e

LMMPL is a joint venture company with

equity participation of LSCL. The mine was to

be leased out in the name of Lafarge Umium

Mining Pvt. Ltd. (LUMPL), an incorporated

company under the Indian Companies Act,

1956 and a wholly owned subsidiary of LSCL.

The limestone as mined by LUMPL would be

conveyed from the mine situated at Nongtrai

after crushing in a crusher plant.

The limestone mined was to be conveyed by

a conveyor belt to LSCL plant in Bangladesh.

The sequence of events that led to Supreme

Court judgment is described below:

In September 1997 LMMPL made an

application for granting environmental clearance

for limestone mining project at Nongtrai, East

Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. The application

was made under Environment Impact Assessment

(EIA) Notification, 1994. However, this proposal

was returned by Ministry of Environment and

Forests (MoEF) as MoEF had amended the EIA

Notification of 1994 and made public hearing

mandatory for development projects2. In

September 1998, M/s. LMMPL India applied for

Site Clearance for Limestone Mining Project at

Nongtrai village, East Khasi Hills District,

Meghalaya which was granted under the 1994

Notification3, subject to strict compliance of terms

and conditions mentioned therein. One of the

conditions was that the Project Proponent shall

obtain environmental clearance for the proposed

limestone mine as per the procedure laid down in

the 1994 Notification before taking up

developmental work at the site. No

developmental activity relating to the project was

to start prior to environmental clearance.

In April 2000, LMMPL made an

application for environmental clearance to MoEF

to excavate 2.0 million tons per annum of

2 listed in Schedule-I of the Notification 3 as amended on 4.5.1994 and 10.4.1997

limestone and to transport the same to Chhatak

in Bangladesh through belt conveyor (7.2 km long

within Indian Territory). The mining lease area

was indicated to be 100 hectare. The description

of land was shown as "barren". In the application,

it was further stated that there was no notified

forest land within 25 kms from the proposed

mine. Along with the application, a copy of No

Objection Certificate (NOC) for mining operations

at the proposed site issued by Khasi Hills

Autonomous District Council, Shillong4 was also

attached. NOC granted for withdrawal of water

for the project, consent to establish the project

issued by Meghalaya Pollution Control Board,

minutes of Environmental Public Hearing of the

project were also attached.

On receipt of the application for

environmental clearance, certain queries were

raised by MoEF in May 2000, with regard to the

scope of the site clearance; certificate from local

District Forest Officer (DFO); effect of disposal of

waste water through soak pit and whether the

existing road width was sufficient to carry heavy

equipment for mining purposes. Accordingly, in

June 2000, the DFO forwarded the certificate by

which it was certified that the mining site was not

a forest area and it did not fall under any of the

notified reserved or protected forests. The

certificate also stated that the site area was

covered with Karst topography which supported

only a sporadic growth of a few tree shrubs.

Despite such certificate of DFO, MoEF in

May and June 2000, called for additional

information including list of flora and fauna in

compliance of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, list

of species under the 1972 Act, consent from the

State Pollution Control Board for 3000 TPD of

limestone, information on ground water

potential, information regarding water

4 This stated that the Council had no objection for mining operations at Nongtrai Village since the area of 100 hectare does not fall within forest land

5 | P a g e

requirement, etc. These issues were clarified by

LMMPL in August 2000; however, despite

clarification, MoEF once again examined the

matter through an Expert Committee which met

in October 2000 in New Delhi. EIA Clearance was

finally given by MoEF in August 2001 which

contained further conditions. On EIA Clearance

being granted by MoEF, LMMPL was allowed to

transfer and assign the lease to LUMPL, having its

registered office at Shillong. In July 2002,

environmental clearance which was earlier

granted to LMMPL stood transferred to LUMPL by

MoEF.

In June 2006, Chief Conservator of

Forests (CCF) wrote to MoEF that he had visited

Limestone Mining Project of M/s. Lafarge and

found that the project had completed

developmental works and opening of mine

benches had also been accomplished for 7Ha of

the mining lease land. It was further stated in the

letter that the mining lease area around the

developed mine benches were surrounded by

thick natural vegetation cover with sizeable

number of tall trees which were cleared for

developing the mining benches and the wood

obtained from felling of trees was collected by the

lessor who were from Nongtrai Village. According

to the letter, no permission for clearance was

taken under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

(FCA). Further, even the Rapid EIA report

submitted by the project proponent described

the land as wasteland though the visit of the Chief

Conservator found it to be otherwise. The

complaint made by the CCF was conveyed to the

project proponent and MoEF directed M/s.

LMMPL to obtain forest clearance under the 1980

Act before taking steps to clear vegetation

including trees for developing mining benches.

In September 2006, MoEF issued EIA

Notification 2006 according to which, the

concerns of local affected persons were required

to be taken into account through public

consultation. The Chief Conservator of Forests(C)

requested the Government of Meghalaya to stop

fresh clearance of vegetation, breaking of land,

extension of mining area, removal of felled trees

and stoppage of non- forestry activities with

immediate effect. MoEF in April 2007, directed

complete closure of all on going non-forestry

activities by M/s. Lafarge in compliance of the

directions of the Supreme Court in December

1996. At this stage, M/s. Lafarge moved to the SC

seeking orders directing MoEF to expeditiously

process its application under FCA.

In September 2007, Central Empowered

Committee (CEC) submitted its report to the SC

saying that the project proponent should have

taken permission under FCA before starting

operations in the area. Since a fait accompli

situation had arisen, according to CEC, there was

no option but to recommend the case for grant of

permission for the use of forest land for mining

lease, conveyor belt system and associated

activities subject to certain conditions. By interim

order in February 2010, M/s. Lafarge was directed

to stop all mining activities.

A High Powered Committee (HPC) was

setup to inspect which assessed the impact of the

mining done by the project proponent up to April

2010 on forest, wildlife and surroundings and

stated that the total clearing involved felling of

9345 trees out of which 1200 trees have already

been felled. That, although the area supports rich

flora, the same can be re-forested as a part of

reclamation plan. According to the report, the

impact could be minimized after a thorough study

of Bio-Diversity Management Plan as well as

Catchment Area Treatment Plan is prepared and

executed in a time bound manner. The report also

stated that the project is positive and beneficial to

the residents of Nongtrai village due to huge

financial benefits to Nongtrai and Shella. Further,

the report states that mining would not have any

adverse effect on the human life.

6 | P a g e

In April 2010, MoEF granted

environmental clearance with certain additional

conditions. The environmental clearance was

followed by forest clearance with stipulated

conditions to be met, also in April 2010 (ex-post

facto clearance).

The SC was informed in April 2010 of this

and was submitted to the SC that M/s. Lafarge

may be permitted to resume the mining

operations subject to compliance of conditions

enumerated in the order passed by MoEF on April

2010. However, The SC ordered that before it

grants permission to resume the mining

operations, it was imperative that plans should be

drawn up and relevant reports be placed before

the Court based on a comprehensive engineering

and biological study.

2) Judgment

The SC pronounced that time had come for

the Supreme Court to apply the constitutional

"doctrine of proportionality" to the matters

concerning environment as a part of the

process of judicial review in contradistinction

to merit review. It further stated that:

Utilization of the environment and its

natural resources has to be in a way that is

consistent with principles of sustainable

development and intergenerational equity, but

balancing of these equities may entail policy

choices.

In the circumstances, barring exceptions,

decisions relating to utilization of natural

resources have to be tested on the anvil of the

well- recognized principles of judicial review.

Whether the relevant factors have been taken

into account, whether any extraneous factors

have influenced the decision, whether the

decision is strictly in accordance with the

legislative policy underlying the law (if any) that

governs the field, whether the decision consistent

with the principles of sustainable development in

the sense that has the decision-maker taken into

account the said principle and, on the basis of

relevant considerations, arrived at a balanced

decision.

Court should review the decision-making

process to ensure that decisions of MoEF are fair

and fully informed, based on the correct

principles, and free from any bias or restraint.

Once this is ensured, then the doctrine of "margin

of appreciation" in favour of the decision-maker

would come into play.

SC stated that this view is further

strengthened by the decision of the Court of

Appeal in the case of R v. Chester City Council

reported in (2011) 1 All ER 476 (paras 14 to 16).

The SC further stated that the case stands

disposed of keeping in mind various facets of

the word "environment", the inputs provided

by the Village Durbar of Nongtrai (including

their understanding of the word "forest" and

the balance between environment and

economic sustainability), their participation

in the decision-making process, the

topography and connectivity of the site to

Shillong, the polluter pays principle and the

intergenerational equity (including the

history of limestone mining in the area from

1858 and the prevalent social and customary

rights of the natives and tribals). It further

stated that it was satisfied that limestone

mining had been going on for centuries in the

area and that it is an activity which is

intertwined with the culture and the unique

land holding and tenure system of the

Nongtrai Village. Accordingly, it sees no

reason to interfere with the decision of MoEF

granting site clearance dated 18.6.1999, EIA

clearance dated 9.8.2001 read with revised

environmental clearance dated 19.4.2010

and Stage-I forest clearance dated 22.4.2010.

7 | P a g e

3) Guidelines to be followed in future

cases

Part II of the SC order gave guidelines to be

followed by the Central Government, State

Government and the various authorities

under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

These guidelines are to be implemented in all

future cases so that fait accompli situations

do not recur, till a regulatory mechanism is

put in place.

The words "environment" and

"sustainable development" have various facets.

The National Forest Policy, 1988 which lays down

far-reaching principles must necessarily govern

the grant of permissions under Section 2 of the

FCA 1980 as it provides the road map to ecological

protection and improvement under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The

principles/ guidelines mentioned in the National

Forest Policy, 1988 should be read as part of the

provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986 read together with the Forest

(Conservation) Act, 1980. The SC stated that this

direction was required to be given because there

is no machinery even today established for

implementation of National Forest Policy, 1988

read with FCA 1980. Section 3 of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 confers a power coupled

with duty and, thus, it is incumbent on the

Central Government, to appoint an Appropriate

Authority, preferably in the form of Regulator, at

the State and at the Centre level for ensuring

implementation of the National Forest Policy,

1988.

The basic objectives of the National

Forest Policy, 1988 include positive and pro-active

steps to be taken. These include maintenance of

environmental stability through preservation,

restoration of ecological balance that has been

adversely disturbed by serious depletion of

forest, conservation of natural heritage of the

country by preserving the remaining natural

forests with the vast variety of flora and fauna,

checking soil erosion and denudation in the

catchment areas, checking the extension of sand-

dunes, increasing the forest/ tree cover in the

country and encouraging efficient utilization of

forest produce and maximizing substitution of

wood. Thus, under Section 3(3) of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central

Government should appoint a National Regulator

for appraising projects, enforcing environmental

conditions for approvals and to impose penalties

on polluters.

The SC stated that there were reasons for

having a regulatory mechanism in place as

identification of an area as forest area is solely

based on the declaration to be filed by the User

Agency (project proponent). The project

proponent is required to undertake EIA by an

expert body/ institution. In many cases, the court

is not made aware of the terms of reference and

at times, it is faced with conflicting reports.

Similarly, the government is also faced with a fait

accompli kind situation which in the ultimate

analysis leads to grant of ex facto clearance. To

obviate these difficulties, a regulatory mechanism

should be put in place and till the time such

mechanism is put in place, MoEF should prepare

a Panel of Accredited Institutions from which

alone the project proponent should obtain the

Rapid EIA and that too on the Terms of Reference

to be formulated by MoEF.

If the project proponent makes a claim

regarding status of the land being non-forest and

if there is any doubt, the site shall be inspected by

the State Forest Department along with the

Regional Office of MoEF to ascertain the status of

forests, based on which the certificate in this

regard be issued.

Creation and regular updating of a GIS

based decision support database, tentatively

containing inter-alia the district-wise details of

8 | P a g e

the location and boundary of (i) each plot of land

that may be defined as forest for the purpose of

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (ii) the core,

buffer and eco-sensitive zone of the protected

areas constituted as per the provisions of the

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; (iii) the important

migratory corridors for wildlife; and (iv) the forest

land diverted for non-forest purpose in the past in

the district.

Preparation of Geo-referenced district

forest-maps containing the details of the location

and boundary of each plot of land that may be

defined as "forest" for the purpose of the Forest

(Conservation) Act, 1980.

The MoEF will prepare a comprehensive

policy for inspection, verification and monitoring

and the overall procedure relating to the grant of

forest clearances and identification of forests in

consultation with the States (given that forests

fall under entry 17A of the Concurrent List).

4) Significance of the Judgment

The judgment is very important for two

reasons; firstly it clarifies the extent of judicial

review in a situation where environmental

clearances had already been granted and

where questions are subsequently raised

with respect to the validity of the process,

and secondly it lays down a set of

comprehensive guidelines for future projects

that involve both forest and environmental

clearances.

The Court held that the constitutional

doctrine of proportionality should apply to

environmental matters as well and therefore

decisions relating to utilisation should be

judged on the well-established principles of

natural justice, such as whether all relevant

factors were taken into account at the time of

coming to the decision, whether the decision

was influenced by extraneous circumstances,

and whether the decision was in accordance

with the legislative policy underlying the laws

that governs the field. If these circumstances

were satisfied, the decision of a government

authority (in this case the MoEF) would not be

questioned by the Court.

The importance of this section of the

judgment is that the Court lays down a clear

principle that if a project developer complies

with the specified procedure for obtaining

environmental clearances and there is

evidence on record that the entity granting

the clearance had done so after due

consideration, such clearances would not be

reversed to the prejudice of the project

developer. This gives some much needed

stability to the environmental clearance

process and both project developers would

benefit from this consistent approach.

The other important aspect of the Lafarge

judgement is the guidelines that the Court

has laid down for future development

projects that would use forest land. Decision

makers within MoEF and the state forest

departments are to be guided by these

principles while considering whether to grant

approval to a proposed project for the use of

forest land. This makes the entire process

transparent and brings clarity to the process.

Sources: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/WC2021995.pdf; http://www.sci.nic.in/outtoday/wc2029506072011.pdf; http://pxvlaw.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/lafarge-judgment-stabilises-environmental-clearance-process/

III. Critical discussion of rules/laws: EIA notifications

1) Background

The United Nations Environment Programme

defines environmental impact assessment

(EIA) as a tool used to identify the

environmental, social, and economic impacts

of a project, prior to decision-making. It aims

to predict environmental impacts at an early

9 | P a g e

stage in project planning and design, find

ways and means to reduce adverse impacts,

shape projects to suit the local environment

and present the predictions and options to

decision-makers. By using EIA both

environmental and economic benefits can be

achieved, such as reduced cost and time of

project implementation and design, avoided

treatment/clean-up costs and impacts of laws

and regulations. EIA compares various

alternatives for a project and seeks to identify

the one which represents the best

combination of economic and environmental

costs and benefits. By considering the

environmental effects of the project and their

mitigation early in the project planning cycle,

environmental assessment has many

benefits, such as protection of environment,

optimum utilisation of resources and saving of

time and cost of the project.

It is an important management tool for

ensuring optimal use of natural resources for

sustainable development. Properly conducted

EIA also lessens conflicts by promoting

community participation, informing decision

makers, and helping lay the base for

environmentally sound projects.

A beginning in this direction was made in our

country with the environmental impact

assessment of river valley projects in 1978-79

and the scope has subsequently been

enhanced to cover other developmental

sectors such as industries, thermal power

projects, mining schemes etc. As per the

notification no. SO.60E dated 27 January

1994, EIA was made mandatory under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for 29

categories of developmental activities

involving investments of Rs. 50 crores and

above. The Ministry of Environment and

Forests has brought out a new notification, in

September 2006, which has significantly

changed the approach to EIA processes in

India.

2) Main provisions of the Notification

issued in 2006

I. Requirement of prior environmental

clearance: All new projects or activities,

expansion and modernization of existing

projects or activities which cross the

threshold limits and any change in product -

mix in an existing manufacturing unit beyond

the specified range listed in the Schedule to

this notification shall require prior

environmental clearance from the concerned

regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter

referred to be as the Central Government in

the Ministry of Environment and Forests

(MoEF) for matters falling under Category ‘A’

in the Schedule and at State level the State

Environment Impact Assessment Authority

(SEIAA), constituted by the Central

Government, for matters falling under

Category ‘B’ in the said Schedule, before any

construction work, or preparation of land by

the project management except for securing

the land, is started on the project or activity.

II. Screening, Scoping and Appraisal

Committees: The Central Government and

SEIAA will give clearance on the basis of

recommendations of the Expert Appraisal

Committee (EAC) at Central level and State

Expert Appraisal Committees (SEAC) at the

State/ Union Territory level. Members of

EAC/SEAC, may inspect any site connected

with the project or activity for which prior

environmental clearance is sought.

III. Application for Prior Environmental

Clearance (EC):- An application seeking prior

environmental clearance is to be made in the

10 | P a g e

prescribed Form 1 (notification5 to

MoEF/SEIAA) after the identification of

prospective site and before commencing any

construction activity, or preparation of land,

at the site by the applicant.

IV. Stages in the Prior Environmental

Clearance (EC) Process for New Projects:

Comprises of a maximum of four stages, all of

which may not apply to a particular cases.

These are:

(i) Screening: The project proponent

assesses if the proposed activity/project falls

under the purview of environmental clearance or

not. All projects fall into these categories-

Category A: All projects and activities require EIA

study and clearance from central government.

Category B: Application reviewed by the SEAC into

two categories - B1 (which will require EIA study)

and B2, which does not require EIA study.

(ii) EIA report: All category ‘A’ projects

compulsorily require EIA appraisal. For

categorization of projects into B1 or B2, MoEF

issues guidelines from time to time.

(iii) Scoping: Scoping refers to the process by

which the concerned EAC/SEAC determines

detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference

(TOR) addressing all relevant environmental

concerns for the preparation of an EIA Report for

the project. This stage identifies the key issues and

impacts that should be further investigated. This

stage also defines the boundary and time limit of

the study. If the TOR is not finalized and conveyed

to the applicant within sixty days of receipt, TOR

suggested by the applicant shall be deemed as the

final TOR approved for the EIA studies.

(iv) Public Consultation: This refers to the

process by which the concerns of local affected

persons and others who have plausible stake in

the environmental impacts of the project or

5 and Supplementary Form 1A, if applicable, as given in Appendix II of the notification

activity are ascertained with a view to taking into

account all the material concerns in the project or

activity design as appropriate. All Category ‘A’ and

Category B1 projects or activities shall undertake

Public Consultation projects with some

exceptions. Public Consultation shall ordinarily

have two components comprising of (a) a public

hearing at the site or in its close proximity- district

wise, to be carried out in the manner prescribed

in Notification, for ascertaining concerns of local

affected persons; and (b) obtain responses in

writing from other concerned persons having a

plausible stake in the environmental aspects of

the project or activity. The public hearing at, or in

close proximity to, the site(s) in all cases shall be

conducted by the State Pollution Control Board/

Committee. After completion of the public

consultation, the applicant shall address all the

material environmental concerns expressed

during this process, and make appropriate

changes in the draft EIA and Environment

Management Plan (EMP). The final EIA report shall

be submitted by the applicant to the concerned

regulatory authority for appraisal.

(v) Appraisal: Appraisal means detailed

scrutiny by EAC/SEAC of the application and other

documents like the Final EIA report, outcome of

the public consultations including public hearing

proceedings, submitted by the applicant for grant

of environmental clearance. This appraisal shall be

made by EAC/SEAC concerned in a transparent

manner in a proceeding. On conclusion of this

proceeding, EAC/SEAC concerned shall make

categorical recommendations either for grant of

prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms

and conditions, or rejection of the application for

prior environmental clearance, together with

reasons for the same.

(vi) The appraisal of all projects or activities

which are not required to undergo public

11 | P a g e

consultation, or submit an EIA report shall be

carried out on the basis of the prescribed

application Forms, site visit, any other relevant

validated information available.

(vii) Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental

Clearance (EC): The regulatory authority shall

consider the recommendations of EAC/SEAC and

convey its decision to the applicant within forty

five days of the receipt of the recommendations

of the EAC/SEAC. The regulatory authority shall

normally accept the recommendations of the

EAC/SEAC concerned. In cases where it disagrees,

it can request the EAC/SEAC to reconsider.

Timelines have been fixed for each of these

stages.

(viii) Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC):

Prior environmental clearance granted for a

project or activity shall be valid for different

durations as specified in Schedule to the

notification.

(ix) Post Environmental Clearance

Monitoring: It shall be mandatory for the project

management to submit half-yearly compliance

reports in respect of the stipulated prior

environmental clearance terms and conditions in

hard and soft copies to the regulatory authority

concerned, on 1st June and 1st December of each

calendar year. All such compliance reports

submitted by the project management shall be

public documents.

(x) Transferability of Environmental

Clearance (EC): A prior environmental clearance

granted for a specific project or activity to an

applicant may be transferred during its validity to

another legal person entitled to undertake the

project or activity on application by the transferor,

or by the transferee with a written “no objection”

by the transferor, to, and by the regulatory

authority concerned, on the same terms and

conditions under which the prior environmental

clearance was initially granted, and for the same

validity period. No reference to the EAC/SEAC is

necessary in such cases.

Table-Summary of EIA Process

Activity Who does it

Submission of application (Form 1, prelim reports)

Investor

Stage 1: Screening; Decide project A, B1 or B2

Expert Committee

Stage 2: Scoping; Come up with Terms of Reference (TOR) Prepare preliminary EIA report

Investor

Stage 3: Public consultation (2 Components)

State Pollution Control Board

Stage 4: Appraisal Expert Committee

Final Decision Regulatory Authority

3) Critical analysis of notification of

2006

The system of clearances envisaged is a

highly centralized one involving only clearance

from the Central Government and State

Government. The local bodies have no role to play

in the whole process. Such a move appears

anomalous, especially when the trend worldwide

is towards vesting decision making powers at the

local level, more so when the issue is one which

has a significant impact on the local population.

EIAs do not consider the cumulative

impacts of more than a single project, i.e., the

question of a synergistic impact - whether the

total impact of several projects exceeds the sum

of their individual impacts. This is due to lack of

knowledge concerning other developmental

projects.

The present system has an inadequate

consideration of alternatives to the proposed

project/activity. In many countries, regulations

mandate that the agencies rigorously explore all

reasonable alternatives and devote attention to

each alternative in detail so that reviewers may

12 | P a g e

consider their comparative merits. In many

countries, 'alternative site selection' is an

essential component of an Environmental

Assessment as it is necessary to examine the

rationale behind why a different site was not

chosen. In India, EMPs are hardly substitutes for

these. The project in all its respects, is taken as an

underlying assumption and recommendations are

only aimed at mitigating adverse impacts.

Alternatives are not suggested at all.

There are also problems with the EIA

reports and EMP reports. Fox example:

exaggerate the power demand and certify that the

project if green, clean, renewable; Lift paragraphs

and sentences from other documents without

citing sources; Use outdated figures when latest

figures are available; references for facts and

figures in the EIA not given, so one cannot cross

check them; Impact study across the year not

done; Impact with respect to landslides, flash

floods, peak precipitation, not assessed.

Cumulative Impact Assessment is completely

missing.

The primary problem in the

implementation process is the excessive reliance

placed on reports of the project proponent and

the agency which carries out the EIA. Clearance

may be given based on the report of the project

proponent and the EIA itself is carried out by an

agency appointed by the project proponent.

Hence the assessment cannot be said to take an

impartial view of the project.

The predictions in an EIA are rarely tested

against what actually happens. Hence, impact

predictions have little chance of being improved

or tested for accuracy.

The notification deals only with

process of grant of environment clearance. The

critical issue of monitoring and compliance which

is an integral part of the Environment Clearance

regime has been inadequately dealt with. EIA

notification 1994 mandated MoEF to maintain its

independent monitoring report. This role of MoEF

finds no mention whatsoever in the new

notification. The notification is also silent on who

would be the monitoring agency for projects

cleared by the state government. There is also no

role for local community groups to be involved in

monitoring of projects.

The requirements for EIA are generally

comprehensive and include information on land

use, pollution sources in air, water and solid waste

quality. But no norms have been set for

preparation of EIA, how an EIA is to be prepared,

what conditions it must satisfy etc. The regulatory

authority has to make its own judgment if EIA is

complete or whether it lacks requisite

information.

The EIA and environmental clearances fall

within the power of the Centre but the

implementation of pollution control is with the

states. This leads to a scenario where multiple

agencies share similar responsibilities without

well-defined roles.

Source: http://coe.mse.ac.in/impactassessment.asp; http://envfor.nic.in/division/introduction-8; http://www.cseindia.org/node/383; http://sandrp.in/otherissues/eia_emp_ht_310806.ppt; http://indiatogether.org/eiafail-environment; http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/FF7FD243-3340-4807-94A3-B3A989C9110E.pdf; http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/05/03/2013/improving-environmental-impact-assessment-eia-effectiveness-some-reflections

IV. Snapshots: Environment news

Floods a reminder of climate change impact

Environmentalists have termed the Jammu

and Kashmir disaster as a “grim reminder of

increasing impact of climate change in India”

and warned of more such extreme rainfall

events in the years to come. Pointing towards

the recent extreme events to impact the

country — Uttarakhand flash floods (2013),

13 | P a g e

Leh cloudburst (2010) and Mumbai floods

(2005) — to substantiate their argument,

they are now asking the government to

“accept” the reality portrayed by climate

change models and start planning

accordingly. And as was the case with some

of the previous extreme rainfall events, the

scale of disaster in Jammu and Kashmir has

also been exacerbated by unplanned

development, especially on the riverbanks.

Greenhouse gas levels rising at fastest rate

since 1984

A surge in atmospheric CO2 saw levels of

greenhouse gases reach record levels in 2013,

according to new figures. Concentrations of

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between

2012 and 2013 grew at their fastest rate since

1984. The World Meteorological Organisation

(WMO) says that it highlights the need for a

global climate treaty.

Environment ministry to review 5 acts

A high-level committee has been constituted

by the government to review various

environment laws in order to bring them in

line with "current requirements", an official

said Wednesday. It will review the

Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, Forest

(Conservation) Act 1980, Wildlife (Protection)

Act 1972, The Water (Prevention and Control

of Pollution) Act 1974 and The Air (Prevention

and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, and will

propose amendments. The committee has

been set up in the backdrop of the

government taking serious measures to

speed up the environmental clearance

process for achieving economic growth

without compromising green issues.

Set Up Land Banks in States for Faster Green

Clearances

In yet another step to speed up green

clearances, involving forest diversion

proposals for infrastructure projects, the

Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)

has asked the States to set up a land bank of

degraded, non-degraded and non-forest land

so that projects are not held up due to search

for non-forest land for compensatory

afforestation. The Forest Survey of India has

been asked to prepare a forest cover map,

type, landscape and other parameters.

Mountain of trash may be driving Himalayas

to disaster

There are 249 glacial lakes in HP and 11 have

been identified as ones with potential risk of

breaching. Experts said that these lakes need

regular monitoring. Non-biodegradable waste

absorbs heat which results in temperature

rise that can melt glaciers to form new glacial

lakes. These lakes pose the threat of glacial

lake outburst flood. The increase in

atmospheric temperatures is the main reason

for higher melt rates of glaciers. Though waste

is not the biggest reason for such increase, it

is a contributor. In the last century, the north-

western Himalayan region has witnessed 1.6

degrees celsius rise in temperature.

257 Noida, Yamuna e-way projects don’t

have pollution, eco nod

The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

(UPPCB) on Thursday shot off notices to 257

ongoing projects and some established

educational institutes in Noida and the

Yamuna Expressway region for not procuring

pollution or environmental clearances before

starting construction. UPPCB has asked all

these 257 buildings to update the UPPCB on

the status of their ongoing constructions and

to procure the necessary clearances.

NGT wants a riverfront plan that lays stress on

cleaning Yamuna

The National Green Tribunal on Thursday

expanded the scope of two related cases on

14 | P a g e

the Yamuna riverfront development project

and natural drains leading into the river. This

was done so that Yamuna's problems can be

addressed holistically. This also means

Delhiites can look forward to a riverfront that

is left to itself and its riparian ecosystem

allowed to thrive naturally.

Sunderbans mangrove trees losing capacity

to absorb CO2

The vast mangrove forest in the Sunderbans

is fast losing its capacity to absorb carbon

dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases,

from the atmosphere due to rise in the

salinity of water, rampant deforestation and

pollution, a research study, "Blue Carbon

Estimation in Coastal Zone of Eastern India -

Sunderbans", financed by the Union

government, has found. The stored carbon in

the plants is known as ‘Blue Carbons’. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana to use

plastic waste for building roads in Madhya

Pradesh

State Government of Madhya Pradesh is

planning to construct around 350 kilometre

(km) of roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram

Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in Indore division by

utilizing used plastic waste generated in the

city. The move is likely to help tackle the

plastic menace to a large extent. Moreover,

the use of plastic improves the durability of

roads and also saves on cost, adding it has

better resistance to rain. Tamil Nadu is

leading in use of plastic waste in construction

of roads wherein around 5,000 km of roads

have been constructed. States like

Maharashtra, Goa, Himachal Pradesh,

Manipur and now Madhya Pradesh

are adopting this technology.

Inland waterways project will ‘kill’ the

Ganga

The experts and the activists who have been

working for the revival of the holy river feel

that the Centre’s plan to develop the Ganga

as waterway for commercial activities would

sound the death knell for the river that is

already struggling for survival. The

Government is now talking of constructing

dams at every 100 km. Between Varanasi and Hooghly, which is around 1,600 km stretch,

there will be 16 dams. An expert in river engineering said 90 per cent the holy river is

“killed” when it reaches the plains, and the

rest when its free movement is further

controlled.

Despite Rs 486 crores project, Kashi

residents gets contaminated water

The project of several crores of rupees for

supply of potable water is like a white

elephant for the Kashi. The people are

compelled to drink contaminated water

supplied by Jal Kal Department. Although the

water supply project of Rs 486 crores under

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal

Mission is complete but it is yet to be made

functional.

Ganga water unfit for bathing at Allahabad,

Varanasi

The water quality of Ganga river at Allahabad

and Varanasi, two holy places where millions

take a dip, is most unfit for bathing purposes,

the Centre informed the Supreme Court.

Water becomes unfit for bathing if the

biochemical oxygen demand (BoD) level

exceeds 3 mg per litre. In fact, in the entire

stretch of the river from origin point

Gaumukh till it meets the sea, Allahabad is

the most polluted point and most unfit for

bathing with BoD level at 6.4 mg/litre.

Household air pollution puts 3 billion at risk

A new study published in the Lancet revealing

that household air pollution, caused by the

15 | P a g e

use of plant-based or coal fuel for cooking,

heating and lighting, is putting nearly three

billion people worldwide at risk of ill health

and early death, has set alarm bells ringing for

India, where it has been found that

household air pollution is so high that it

actually increases outdoor (ambient) air

pollution. According to the study, in some

parts of India pollution levels are more than

three times higher than a typical London

street, and well above WHO-recommended

safety levels.

Govt may do away with tribal consent for

cutting forests

the Government is discussing possible ways

to do away with the mandatory requirement

of securing consent from tribal gram sabhas

before cutting down their forests for

industrial purposes. The deliberations, on

among various ministries, are for zeroing in

on such a way that the requirement is

removed without going through the

politically difficult route of getting the Forest

Rights Act amended in Parliament. If the

proposed move goes through, cutting down

of forests for industrial and development

projects would again be cleared solely at

political-bureaucratic discretion of the Union

government, like it used to be until the Forest

Rights Act was passed in 2006 (implemented

in 2008).

Lantana Eating Into Drinking Water Table

Lantana, a kind of poisonous weed, keeps

increasingly eating into the fodder banks in

the Terai pocket and other zones of

Uttarakhand forests, resulting in growing

number of man-animal conflicts and

depletion of drinking water table. This

revelation has come as a cause of grave

concern for the conservationists. Among

other regions, the Terai-central forest

division has become vulnerable to this

menace.

Borewells sucking Delhi dry

Delhi is reportedly facing the highest decline

of groundwater level among all the metros in

the country. The data compiled by the Central

Ground Water Board has revealed that the

city’s water table, the level below which the

ground is saturated with water has fallen

from 20 feet in 1977 to as much as 214 feet in

some areas in the south-east region of the

Ridge Forest area. This is precisely a little less

than the height of the Qutab Minar.

Water ATMs Deliver Water to Dry Areas of

Rajasthan

Almost 22,000 people in two arid districts of

Rajasthan in India can now swipe a card and

collect 20 litres of clean, drinking water for Rs.

5. People are provided with cards that come

with an initial value of Rs.150 and can be

recharged for a similar amount. Funded by

Cairn India, an energy major in India, the

private-public partnership project is being

touted as a good model of self-governance. A

15-member village committee is responsible

for the operation and maintenance of the

water kiosks, which are delivered and

installed by Tata Projects. The state's Public

Health Engineering Department provides the

premises.

99 % of Sweden's waste is now reused

Around 99 % of Sweden's garbage is now

recycled and the country is so efficient at

managing waste they are importing it from

other European countries. The Scandinavian

country has 32 waste-to-energy (WTE) plants,

where garbage is incinerated to produce

steam, which in turn is used to run generator

turbines and produce electricity. Swedes

generally waste as much as people in other

countries — around 461 kilogrammes per

16 | P a g e

person each year — but only one per cent of

that is ending up in landfill, thanks to the

country's innovative recycling programme.

Source: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal. org.in

V. State in Focus: Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh is the second largest state in

India. The State is also the second richest state

in terms of mineral resources in the country

and has abundant natural wealth in the form

of manganese, limestone, coal, soya bean,

cotton, bauxite, iron ore etc.

1) Environment Scenario

(a) Forest

Forest cover of the state is 25 % of the state’s

geographical area, very dense forests

constitute 8 %, moderately dense forest

constitute 45 % and open forests constitute

46%. Reserved forests constitute 65%,

protected forests 33% and unclassified forests

2%. There has been a decrease of 7 km2 of

very dense forests, 21 km2 of moderately

dense forest and an increase of 28 km2 in

open forests from 2011 to 2013. The

geographical and biotic diversity of the state

is well reflected in its 18 forest types ranging

from thorn-forests to subtropical hill forests.

The abundantly found trees include Teak, Sal,

Bamboo and Tendu. Every year, the State

produces more than 2.5 lakh cubic meter of

timber. The Teak (Tectona Grandis) timber of

the State is world famous for texture, colour

and grain qualities.

The state has been a pioneer in making

forestry people-oriented with 15228 Joint

Forest Management Committees (JFMCs)

involved in protection and management of

about 70% of the forest area. An initiative

called ‘People's Protected Area’ (PPA) has

been taken by the State Government– The

objective of the initiative is to enrich the

forest areas with medicinal plants by

facilitating in situ conservation and ex situ

propagation involving people.

(b) Biodiversity

Situated between the two of the biodiversity

hotspots in the country i.e. Western Ghats

and the North East, Madhya Pradesh is very

rich in biodiversity. The State is rich in

ecosystems and encompasses ravines, hills,

plateau, riparian and plain landscapes for

flourishing different kind of biodiversity. It has

about 5000 species of flora, 500 species of

birds and its water reservoirs inhabit 180

species of fish.

The aquatic biodiversity in the state is also

very rich. 39 species are of commercial

importance and have been reported in the

State. There are two species of crocodiles,

seven species of freshwater turtles, more

than 120 species of wetland birds and two

species of aquatic mammals (dolphin and

otter).

For conservation of flora and fauna, the State

Government began setting up a network of in-

situ conservation areas (national parks and

sanctuaries) under the provisions of the

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. There are 9

National Parks and 25 Sanctuaries spread over

an area of 10,862 sq. km constituting 11.40%

of the total forest area and 3.52% of the

geographical area of the state. Efforts are

under way to increase the Protected Area

network to 15% of the forest or 5% of the

geographical area as suggested by State

Wildlife Board.

More than 300 species of birds are found in

the State forests. The common ones are egret,

jungle crow, peafowl, grey hornbill, red

wattled lapwing, crested serpent eagle,

17 | P a g e

quails, owls, parakeets, common teal etc. A

total of 469 species of birds has been listed in

Madhya Pradesh by Grimmett and Inskipp

(2003). It includes three Critically Endangered

birds (Oriental White-backed and Long-billed

vultures, Siberian Crane), 3 Endangered

species (Great Indian Bustard, Lesser Florican

and Greater Adjutant) and 15 vulnerable

species. The Greater Adjutant is not found in

any bird/biodiversity area. There are only

historical records of this species from Sarguja,

Sehore and Balaghat districts (BirdLife

International 2001). Threatened species for

which the state is important include Oriental

White-backed Vulture which is critically

endangered, Long-billed Vulture which is

critically endangered, Lesser Florican which is

endangered, Great Indian Bustard which is

endangered and Sarus Crane which is

vulnerable

Conservation of wild habitats and wildlife

through establishment of a network of

Protected Areas (PAs) representative of bio-

geographical zones has been the prime

strategy of the government. Special efforts

have been made towards conservation of

highly endangered species as under:-

Kanha, Bandhavgarh, Pench, Panna, and

Satpura national park are managed as project

tiger areas. Kanha National Park was one of the

first 9 Protected Areas selected under Project

Tiger in the country. MP is also known as the 'Tiger

State' as it harbours 19% of India's tiger

population and 10% of the world's tiger

population.

Kanha Tiger Reserve is also the only habitat of

the rare ‘hard ground barasingha'.

Sardarpur sanctuary in Dhar and Sailana are

managed for conservation of kharmor or lesser

florican.

Ghatigaon sanctuary is managed for great

Indian bustard or Son Chiriya.

National Chambal sanctuary is managed for

conservation of gharial and mugger, River dolphin,

smooth coated otter and a number of turtle

species.

Ken -gharial and Son-gharial sanctuaries are

managed for conservation of gharial and mugger.

The only ex-situ conservation area i.e. Van

Vihar National Park, Bhopal which is being

managed as a modern zoological park where

captive wild animals are kept in near natural

habitat setup.

Some of the major issues that threaten the

Biodiversity and Wildlife:-

Growing demand of fuelwood and fodder:

Of the total 52,731 villages in the state, 21,797 are

located in the vicinity (within 5 km) of forest areas.

Around 1 crore people are dependent on forests.

Promotion of plantation of economically

more productive single species of seeds leading to

genetic degradation/loss of biodiversity.

Invasion of alien species of seeds

Big developmental schemes

Irrational overexploitation of specific

species of herbs etc. like ‘musli’, ‘satavari’ etc.

Poaching

Forest fires: Often man-caused and

associated with the activities of mahua and sal

seed collection

The increase in the prices of timber like teak

(c) Waste management

Solid waste management

According to CPCB report of 2011-12, MP

generates 4500 Metric Tonnes (MT) per day of

solid waste, out of this only 2700 MT/day is

collected and 975 MT/day is treated (2012). In

2010-11, Indore generated 720 MT/day of solid

18 | P a g e

waste, Jabalpur generated 400 MT/day, and the

rest was generated by other class 1 and class 2

cities in MP. In Bhopal, it is estimated that 569

metric tonnes of solid waste was generated in

2011. Gwalior, the 4th largest city in MP, it was

estimated that in 2011, 250-300 tonnes of

municipal wastes was being generated daily. It

also 4 waste processing plants (compost/vermi-

compost). The rest of the waste gets dumped in

illegal dumpsites, causing incidents of water and

land pollution, as well as posing a menace to

public health. The construction of sanitary

landfills were reported to CPCB in Gwalior &

Indore in 2010-11; present status is not known.

Biomedical waste management

As of March 2010, there were a total of 2373

Heath Care facilities (HCFs) in the state with

55,390 beds. The amount of Bio medical waste

generated in the state per day was 65,231 kgs

and collected was 4973 kg/day. The total

quantity of biomedical waste getting treated

was 4713.487 kgs per day, which showed that a

huge amount of biomedical waste was getting

improperly dumped, posing risks to health and

environment.

There were 13 Common Biological Waste

Treatment Facilities (CBWTF) and 1380 HCFs

were utilizing these and 517 HCFs had their own

treatment facilities. Madhya Pradesh Pollution

Control Board (MPPCB) had found 510 HCFs

violating the Bio-Medical Waste (Management

and Handling) Rules but the number of show

cause notices issued was only 130.

Monitoring of incinerators set up by CBWTF by

CPCB highlighted the following lacunae:

In place of CBWTF, only incinerators were

being operated in Medical Colleges at Jabalpur &

Gwalior in the heart of city in residential areas,

giving rise to air pollution.

Most of the CBWTFs did not have efficient

ETP to treat the wastewater before discharging into

drain / reusing in facility for horticulture or other

purpose.

Combustion efficiency varies from 19 to

92%. None of the incinerators are complying the

prescribed norms

Hazardous waste

In MP, there are about 14,000

industries/project located in different parts of

the State. Out of the above 1,346 industries are

registered with. M.P. Pollution Control Board

under Hazardous Waste (Management,

Handling & Trans-boundary Movement) Rules

2008. Among these 1,346 units 561 are

Large/Medium scale industries, whereas 785

are Small Scale units. The main source of

generation of hazardous waste from most of the

industries is waste/spent oil whereas the

manufacturing process also contribute to the

generation of hazardous waste to a

considerable extent.

Total generation of hazardous waste from 1346

units located in Madhya Pradesh comes to

around 4,50,529.63 MT for the year 2010-11

which can be classified in four categories as

mentioned below:-

Secured Landfillable waste -- 78,234.55 MT

Reusable waste -- 2,14,371.47 MT

Incinerable waste -- 1,887.65 MT

19 | P a g e

Saleable waste -- 1,56,035.96 MT

In MP, other than the common Treatment

Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) site at

Pithampur Dist., Dhar, there are 11 captive

Secured Land Fills and Incineration Facilities and

15 units have their own incineration facility.

M.P. Pollution Control Board had identified 4

hazardous waste dump sites in Maksi and

Ratlam area; belonging to industries have been

closed due to some or other reasons between

1997 to 2003 and has filed prosecution against

these defaulting units which are under

consideration in the court of law. The approx.

quantity of waste stored at various locations

(industrial premises and nearby area) is

23,476.4 MT as per the preliminary

assessments. CPCB consultation with the State

Pollution Control Board, has identified 12

priority areas, containing 23 contaminated sites

based on the quantum of waste dumped, extent

of ground/surface water and soil

contamination, nature of pollutants, ecological

and health impacts.

A Task Force was constituted by High Court of

MP in 2009 for assessment of contamination

and delineation of suitable strategies for the

remediation of contaminated areas in and

around the Union Carbide (UCIL) site at Bhopal.

The reconnaissance survey of the UCIL premises

revealed existence of a number of dumps and

the geophysical investigations indicated

possibility of contamination at three sites out of

nine sites. Sampling and analysis of subsurface

soil indicated contamination of soil up to a

depth of about 2 m. Major contaminants

detected at the site include: BHC, aldicarb,

carbaryl, α-naphthol and mercury. Monitoring

of groundwater from the bore wells within UCIL

premises and the existing wells around UCIL

premises indicated that groundwater in general

is not contaminated due to seepage of

contaminants from the UCIL dumps. However,

isolated contamination in terms of pesticides

and/or dichlorobenzene was observed in 5 well

in the immediate vicinity of UCIL premises and

was attributed to surface runoff from the

dumps.

E waste

MoEF promulgated E-waste Rules in 2011

which were put into force from May 1, 2012.

In compliance to the Rules, MP Pollution

Control Board has put forward a framework

for effective management of e-wastes in the

state. Indore is the largest generator of e

waste, generating 800 Tonnes of wastes

yearly, followed by Bhopal, Gwalior and

Ujjain with 415 tonnes, 400 tonnes and 315

tonnes per annum of wastes respectively.

(d) Water issues

Surface water pollution

Madhya Pradesh has numerous rivers, the

important ones being Narmada, Chambal,

Betwa, Kshipra, Sone, Mahanadi, Khan,

Indrawati, Tapti, Wain Ganga, Beehar and

Mandakini. In MP, CPCB has identified Khan

and Chambal river (downstream Indore,

downstream Nagda) as polluted river

stretches where BOD>30mg/l and BOD

exceeds 6mg/l on all occasions. Kshipra and

Narmada have also been identified as

polluted river stretches where BOD is

between 10 & 20 mg/l. Tons, Kalisot and

20 | P a g e

Betwa fall in the category of polluted river

stretches where BOD Between 6-10 mg/l.

River Narmada: Monitoring of water quality

of Narmada River in 2007 from 4 sampling

stations selected at downstream of

Hoshangaba, showed raised values of

physico-chemical parameters. This indicates

the pollution of riverine ecosystem due to

domestic wastes, municipal sewage,

industrial effluent from Security Paper Mill

(SPM) and agricultural run-off that influence

the water quality directly or indirectly. As a

result, water quality has severely

deteriorated and the potable nature of water

is being lost

Khan River: The Khan river passes from

Indore city and confluences into Shipra river.

The total generation of sewage in Indore city

is 200 MLD whereas only 90 MLD of sewage is

treated, the rest is disposed without

treatment into Khan river. There are 163

industrial units which are water polluting.

Total quantity of industrial effluent generated

from industrial area is 2.2 MLD

Kalpi River: A study revealed that water

quality of the Kalpi (Morar) river is graded as

severely polluted category which not fit for

human consumption and recreation but can

be used for irrigation or for fish culture. The

major anthropogenic activities noticed at

Kalpi (Morar) river were municipal sewage

draining through several open and closed

drains, cattle wading, bathing, open

defecation clothes washing, disposal of

wastes and ashes.

Betwa: It has become polluted at some places

of Mandideep due to industrial activities and

the confluence of sewage, domestic wastes

and industrial effluents of many big and small

enterprises with various types of organic

compounds and heavy metals deteriorated to

human health and aquatic organisms. Urban

areas, farms, factories and individual

households – all contribute to the

contamination of this river. The water quality

in the stretch of the river Betwa extending

from its origin near Mandideep industrial

area up to Bhojpur remains poor because of

the regular inflow of domestic waste of the

Bhopal city through the Kaliyasot river and

industrial/domestic waters from Mandideep.

Groundwater

Ground water in Madhya Pradesh is

contaminated by salinity, fluoride, chloride,

iron and nitrate. In MP on the basis of various

studies carried out 14 vulnerable areas were

identified that showed declining trend of

ground water levels and fell in the over

exploited category. Central Ground Water

Board has identified salinity, fluoride, nitrate,

iron as the primary contaminants of ground

water in MP.

(e) Air Pollution

Close to 350 commercial units have flouted

pollution control norms and emit harmful air

and water effluents beyond the permissible

limits. 60 such firms are located in Bhopal,

followed by 56 in Jabalpur, 51 in Dhar, 45

each in Indore and Ujjain districts, 23 in

Shahdol, 16 each in Rewa and Gwalior region,

11 each in Satna and Guna districts and eight

in Sagar. Dewas, Gwalior Indore and Nagda

Raltam fall in the list of top 80 industrial

clusters which are critical in air pollution.

2) Laws and Polices

Madhya Pradesh Vanopaj (Vyapar

Viniyaman), Adhiniyam, 1969

Madhya Pradesh Mineral Policy, 1995

MP Nagar Palik Vidhi (Sansodhan)

Adhiniyam, 1995

21 | P a g e

Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Policy

Guiding Principles of State Policy for Equitable

and Sustainable Development), 1996

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Madhya Pradesh Rules, 1975

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

(Consent) Madhya Pradesh, Rules, 1975

Madhya Pradesh State Prevention and

Control of Water Pollution Board and Its

committees (Meetings) Rules, 1975

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Madhya Pradesh Rules, 1983

3) Environment Sustainability Index

(ESI)

Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) is a

comparative analysis of environmental

achievements, challenges and priorities

among Indian states. ESI measures the

potential of states to maintain their

environment in the coming decades given the

various environmental resources that a state

is endowed with. Dimensions of sustainability

both as historical conditions and present

efforts are mapped through 40 indicators.

Madhya Pradesh ranks 21st out of 28 states

for which ESI is measured as depicted below:

Source: http://www.mppcb.nic.in/# http://www.cpcb.nic.in/divisionsofheadoffice/pcp/MSW_Report.pdf http://www.mppcb.nic.in/Cat_Haz_Wastes.htm http://envfor.nic.in/sites/default/files/Neeri%20report-1.pdf http://www.ijplsjournal.com/issues%20PDF%20files/march-2013/7.pdf http://isca.in/rjcs/Archives/vol1/I3/06.pdf; http://www.ajebs.com/vol2/30.pdf

VI. Audit Report: Karnataka: Audit Report on Solid Waste Management in Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for the year 2014

1) Background

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) comprises

residential and commercial wastes generated

in a municipal area in either solid or semi-

solid form excluding industrial hazardous

wastes but including treated bio-medical

wastes. Bio Medical Waste (BMW) is any

waste which is generated in health care

establishments (HCEs) during diagnosis,

treatment or immunisation of human beings

or animals. The Government of India (GOI), in

exercise of the powers conferred under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, had

framed Municipal Solid Wastes

(Management and Handling) Rules, 2000

(MSW Rules) and Bio-Medical Wastes

(Management and Handling) Rules, 1998

(BMW Rules) to regulate the management

and handling of MSW and BMW wastes to

protect and improve the environment and to

prevent health hazards to human beings and

other living creatures. As per these Rules,

every municipal authority is responsible for

collection, segregation, storage,

transportation,

processing and

disposal of these

wastes. The

Karnataka

Municipal

Corporations

(KMC) Act, 1976

also mandates Solid Waste Management

(SWM) as an obligatory function of all the

municipal corporations (Section 58).

The city of Bangalore faced an

unprecedented garbage crisis in August 2012

due to indiscriminate dumping of mixed

22 | P a g e

waste, public protests and closure of some

of its landfill sites/dump yards on account of

non-compliance with MSW Rules. The snap

strike (August 2012) by contractors

responsible for cleaning, collection and

transportation of MSW led to dumping of

garbage in open spaces and road sides in

various parts of the city, created health

hazards and aggravated the damage to the

environment.

2) Audit objectives and criteria

The objectives of the performance audit

were to ascertain whether-

adequate institutional mechanism was in

place for effective administration and

management of MSW and BMW as per relevant

Act and Rules;

Management of infrastructure available

for SWM activities was efficient and effective;

Financial resources for SWM activities

were adequate and funds provided were timely

and utilised efficiently and effectively; and

Monitoring mechanism and evaluation

were in place and were effective.

The main sources of audit criteria in

evaluating the performance of SWM were as

under:

MSW Rules;

BMW Rules;

Plastic Waste (Management and Handling)

Rules, 2011;

Karnataka Transparency in Public

Procurements Act, 1999 and Rules thereunder;

Government orders, notifications, instructions

and meeting proceedings

3) Audit findings

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

(BBMP) neither implemented the State Policy for

integrated SWM in urban local bodies notified by

the State Government in 2004 nor complied with

the MSW Rules.

Neither the State Government nor BBMP

had introduced strategies for reduction, reuse

and recycling of waste. As a result disposal

remained the only method of management of

waste, instead of waste minimisation and waste

reduction.

There was no micro-level planning for

primary waste collection, secondary

transportation, bulk waste management,

processing and disposal of MSW.

No contingency plan existed for tackling

any unforeseen situation or crisis. The absence of

contingency plan and closure of dumpsites at

Anjanapura, Cheemasandra, Mavallipura and

Subbarayanapalya led to dumping of mixed

wastes in the available sites.

BBMP did not have complete and reliable

data about quantum of waste generated

annually.

BBMP could not finalise a Detailed Project

Report drafted to seek central assistance for

SWM projects in Bangalore in time as a result it

failed to avail financial assistance of Rs.280.17

crore under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban

Renewal Mission.

BBMP did not make available the latest

position regarding coverage and efficiency of

collection of MSW. It was also seen in the test-

checked zones that basic documents such as

activity records by service providers and

attendance extracts of Pourakarmikas, area

coverage records, etc., in BBMP managed wards

had not been maintained. As per a report (March

2010) of the BBMP, the household level coverage

of SWM services was 70 % and the collection

efficiency was only 56 %.

23 | P a g e

Segregation of waste at source in BBMP

was only 10 % (September 2012) and no steps

were taken by BBMP to promote waste

segregation. This led to different kinds of waste

being mixed together for dumping which limited

the possibility of processing recyclable wastes

due to inadequate processing facilities and

resulted in additional burden on landfills.

In the absence of relevant record

regarding storage facilities, Audit could not verify

the efforts made by BBMP to ensure adequacy

and suitability of storage facilities. However,

instances of unauthorised road-side dumping and

manual handling of waste without proper safety

measures were seen.

BBMP had the capacity to process only

2900 MT of waste per day as against the

estimated waste generation of 5033 MT per day

(2008). The processing capacity, however, was

reduced to 2000 MT per day in 2013. This resulted

in dumping of unprocessed wastes in landfills far

in excess of their optimum capacities, emanating

foul smell in the villages surrounding the landfills.

Further, the failure of BBMP in augmenting its

processing capacity led to accumulation of

unprocessed MSW to the extent of 23.50 lakh MT

and additional expenditure of Rs.31.40 crore,

besides creating health hazards and

contamination of the environment.

Landfills/dump yard sites were situated

on forest land or near water bodies, which was in

contravention of MSW Rules.

Buffer zone was not maintained around

any of the 10 landfill sites/dump yards. As a result

habitations had come around 7 of the 10 test-

checked landfill/dump yards. This not only

contravened MSW Rules but also posed hazards

to public health.

Audit scrutiny of BMW Registers for the

period from December 2010 to March 2013

showed that there were 1,051 instances when

BMW had not been collected on a daily basis from

24 Referral hospitals/maternity homes. Untreated

BMW had not been collected up to six days, which

was in violation of BMW Rules as well as posed

potential public health hazards.

Audit observed that during joint physical

verification of landfills, huge quantities of plastics

were seen dumped at the sites without recovering

the plastic for channelization to recyclers.

Segregation of waste was minimal and the

processing of plastics was done only in two out of

ten landfills. Further, Plastic Rules were not

incorporated in the Municipal By-laws of BBMP.

Despite provided for in the agreements

with the service providers, BBMP did not set-up a

Monitoring Committee comprising of Health

Officers, Medical Officers and Shuchi Mitras to

supervise the work of service providers.

Periodical tests to assess the ambient air

quality and water quality were not conducted in

test-checked landfills/dump yards. Pollution

monitoring equipment were also not kept in any

of the test-checked landfills/dump yards except

in Mavallipura and Doddaballapur.

4) Audit recommendations

BBMP should carry out, periodically, a

comprehensive assessment of the amounts of

waste being generated by installing weigh bridges

at all landfills/dumpsites and recording

weighment data through automated system

without human interference for aiding policy-

making and intervention. BBMP should also

conduct periodical physical/cross verification of

data through competent authority.

BBMP should consider launching an

effective and visible awareness campaign to

promote segregation, recycling and reduction of

waste with the participation of Resident Welfare

Associations and Non-Government

Organisations.

24 | P a g e

Buffer zones around dumpsites should be

maintained and periodic monitoring of dumpsites

for contamination of environment should take

place.

BBMP should take steps to improve its

processing capacity and identification of land for

setting up scientific landfills should be done on a

priority basis. Landfilling should be restricted to

inert waste.

Monitoring at all levels should be

strengthened and management information

system should be introduced for effective

monitoring.

Source: http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/state_audit/recent_reports/Karnataka/2014/5of2014.pdf

VII. International Audit Report: Brazil: Internalization of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements signed at Rio-92

1) Background and purpose of audit

Sustainable development has been the

overarching goal of the international

community since the UN Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED or

Rio 92) held in 1992. Amongst numerous

commitments, the Conference had called

upon governments to develop national

strategies for sustainable development,

incorporating policy measures outlined in the

Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. The third

international conference on sustainable

development-Rio+20-, a 20-year follow-up to

the UNCED, aimed at reconciling the

economic and environmental goals of the

global community was to be hosted

by Brazil in Rio de Janeiro from 13 to 22 June

2012.

2) Audit objective, scope and criteria

In order to contribute to the discussions

related to the Rio+20 Conference, an audit

was carried out to evaluate how

commitments made at Rio 92 were being

internalized in national public policy,

specifically the ones under the Conventions

on Climate Change, Biological Diversity,

Combat Desertification and Agenda 21. The

aim of this audit was to present a general

diagnosis of the state of implementation of

these agreements, identifying the legal and

institutional framework created in the

country to fulfil the commitments, as well as

the main challenges ahead.

The coverage of the audit was as under:-

Analysis of the control instruments used

by the federal executive power to minimize the

occurrence of unauthorized flow of specimens of

Brazilian fauna and flora and the genetic

material borders, as well as checking

government actions that encourage the

sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity;

Evaluation of public policies and

government actions for water security in Brazilian

semiarid region in climate change scenarios;

Evaluating the actions in the Brazilian

coastal zone, at the threat of raising the level of

oceans in a scenario of climate change;

Verifying to what extent the actions of the

federal government are promoting adaptation of

agriculture to climate change scenarios; and

Evaluating the performance of the federal

government towards the mitigation of emissions

of greenhouse gases in the region of the Amazon

forests.

3) Key findings

It was found that the implementation of

the Rio-92 treaties was a key driver of the

country’s advances in the environmental area.

25 | P a g e

The relationship between the fulfilment of

international commitments and the

strengthening of internal policy was easily seen in

the case of the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD). To implement the national commitments

under the CBD, the Ministry of the Environment

developed a robust structure, a Secretariat for

Biodiversity and Forests, as well as a National

Strategy for Biodiversity.

A broad legal framework was complied

with and new legislation was created specifically

for the implementation of the Climate

Convention in the country. Many initiatives

adopted by the Brazilian Government were

credited exclusively to the Convention, like the

creation of the Research on Biodiversity Program,

the creation of the Chico Mendes Institute for

Biodiversity Conservation, the Program for

Protected Areas, among others.

There was no definite legislation that

establishes mechanisms for the fair and equitable

sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of

genetic resources.

Brazil used market mechanisms very well to

contribute to developed countries’ effort to reach

their quantitative targets on greenhouse gas

emissions placed by the Kyoto Protocol through

the Clean Development Mechanism.

Regarding convention on Climate Change,

it was verified that the prominent role that Brazil

has achieved in the international negotiations

induced strengthening of the internal structures

responsible for implementing the Convention.

Among important measures taken by Brazil was

the voluntary commitment for mitigation of

greenhouse gas emission to be achieved through

public policy on renewable energy, energy

efficiency and/or conservation, substitution of

fossil fuels and the fight against deforestation.

Over the last few years, the Government had put

in place programs to foster the development of

knowledge on the area of climate change, with

the creation and strengthening of research

centers. Nevertheless, only a few concrete

adaptation actions were identified.

In relation to the United Nations

Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), a

large disparity in the level of internalization of

commitments was noted. There was no

consistent legal and institutional framework in

place to base the implementation of the

Convention. The national policy to combat

desertification was still not formally instituted in

the country and the coordination of

desertification matters was the responsibility of a

Department in the Ministry of the Environment,

which was not formally constituted in the

structure of the Ministry. Further, the reports

prepared in this respect do not represent an

instrument of government transparency.

In relation to Agenda 21, it was noted that

this agreement was considered “soft law” not

being subject to the ratification process and its

subsequent internalization in the country’s

legislation. Nevertheless, Brazil considered it an

international commitment and invested

resources in the elaboration of a National Agenda

21 and incentives to local actions.

Brazilian National Agenda 21 was launched

in 2002, as an important planning instrument for

public policy in sustainable development. Yet, the

document had not achieved this objective, not

being widely known to society and by policy-

makers.

The Commission for Sustainable

Development Policy (CPDS) was created in 2004,

as the main arena for discussions regarding

sustainable development in the Federal

Government. However, the Commission was not

able to fulfil this institutional role. The CPDS had

never completed and evaluated the

implementation of the National Agenda 21.

4) Recommendations

26 | P a g e

Major recommendations are as under:

The Ministry of Environment should give

diffusion to the national reports on the UNCCD as

a tool for transparency of government actions to

society.

Disclosure of the minutes of the meetings

of the Technical Committee of Management of

Shared Fisheries Resources (CTGP) and

Permanent Management Committees (CPGs) on

the official sites of the Ministry of Fisheries and

Aquaculture and the Environment Ministry

should be made within 30 days of the meetings

that have already occurred in observing the

Principle of Transparency of Public

Administration.

Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture and

the Environment Ministry should develop a

strategy for the promotion and encouragement of

fisheries research, aimed at obtaining and

providing, permanently, information and

scientific justification for the sustainable

development of fishing activities.

A possible revision of the norm that

restricts participation in Committee Permanent

Management (CPG) exclusively for entities with

seats in Conape, thus prevents the participation

of environmental non-governmental

organizations in the decision making process

should be evaluated.

The Ministry of Environment should assess

the opportunity to strengthen the Specialized

Centers in Fisheries Research (CEPSUL, CEPNOR,

CEPENE, CEPAM CEPERG E) as an instance of

technical and scientific support to the fishery

management decision-making process.

Source: http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=527&menu=45 http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20.html http://portal2.tcu.gov.br/portal/page/portal/TCU/Rio20/fichas/en_06_environment.pdf

http://www.environmental-

auditing.org/Portals/0/AuditFiles/Brazil_f_por_Internalization-of-

MEAs-Rio92.pdf