|
Our
generation inherited a ‘poorer’ country than the earlier one,
perhaps largely as a result of decisions that were devoid of
concern and understanding of the symbiotic relationship between
natural resources and human existence. The process for
mega-development that followed our independence essentially
focused on the creation of large structures and failed to pay
attention to the smaller and finer linkages that existed between
the local people and their natural environments. So each time a
large project came up, these linkages broke.
Contrary to what many of us think, most of the consequences were
in no way small or even localised. Thousands of people got
displaced from their homes and moved into unfriendly towns and
cities to live lives of starvation and exploitation at best. Many
thousands lost access to clean drinking water, chemical-free food
and safe working conditions. It took us about twenty-five years to
realise that this development could also have a dark side!
While many of us still believe that our development planners and
our ‘government’ knows what is best for us, people affected by
developmental projects and concerned citizens have continuously
challenged the existing framework and sought change. In many cases
the change has not led to direct and positive consequences.
However, it did lead to, and continues to put into place, some
provisions and spaces within our legal framework for participatory
decision-making. Spaces which could prompt decisions that are
based on concern for the environment and people’s livelihoods.
At the outset, it is important to admit that the provisions made
available by our laws and policies are far from adequate. And the
operationalisation of these provisions in their true spirit is
ridden with problems. Nevertheless, there have been positive
enactments and these have supported dynamic initiatives on the
ground. Understanding them could motivate people’s groups and
citizens to effectively use existing spaces to participate in
developmental planning and decision- making, and seeking a larger
space for involvement in a transparent decision-making process.
A provision that has apparently been used actively by people’s
groups and citizens since its creation is the public hearing as
part of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification (EIA),
1994. It was only in 1997 that it became mandatory for clearance
of certain developmental projects to be preceded by a public
hearing. In the last six years, this space is being increasingly
used by rural/urban communities, non-government organisations and
others to raise concerns or question development planned for their
region. For instance, in Gujarat, it is being used extensively to
raise concern about the severe impact that industrial pollution is
having on soil and water. The High Court of Gujarat, in
acknowledgment of the importance of the role of public hearings,
laid down the first set of guidelines for the conducting of public
hearings. If followed appropriately, public hearings can become an
effective tool to arrive at environmentally sensitive and
people-friendly decisions.
As we write this, we are informed that the mining project proposed
by the Singereni Coal Limited in Adilabad district of Andhra
Pradesh has been rejected by the government. The public hearing
for this project was held in August this year and the local people
vehemently protested against the project on the ground that the
company had flouted the environmental safeguards put down in its
own environmental management plans of their existing mining
projects. In Karnataka, public hearings provided opportunities for
local groups to investigate and bring to light the murky business
behind environmental impact assessments (EIA) for the Dandeli
mini-hydel project. The assessment report, which is meant to be
the core environmental planning tool in a developmental project,
was fudged almost cover to cover by the project consultants.
The EIA notification, which makes the public hearing mandatory,
goes beyond the space that is available in some other acts like
the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, wherein the promoter solicits
public comments in writing after furnishing basic information
about the project.
Many of us are aware that there are several developmental projects
that require forest land to be diverted or exploited. River valley
projects, for instance, in most cases would lead to the
submergence of vast tracts of forest and the creation of the
reservoir. As a result, there is a break up of the contiguity of
the forest, thus affecting habitats of wildlife and
forest-dependent human communities. Most of the mineral resources
lie in ecologically sensitive areas beneath the forests. The
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, prevents the indiscriminate
diversion of forestland for non-forest purposes.
Supporting the spirit of participation of local communities in
decisions regarding diversion of forestland for projects is
Annexure XXII of the Forest (Conservation) Act dated 26 February
1999. It states that “whenever any proposal for diversion of
forest land is submitted, it should be accompanied by a resolution
of the ‘aam sabha’ of Gram Panchayat/Local Body of the
area endorsing the proposal that the project is in the interest of
people living in and around the proposed forest land.” We are
yet to come across how, and whether, citizens and groups concerned
about use of forest resources and rights of forest-dwelling
communities have used this clause. However, if adhered to, this
provision could ensure that forest-related decisions of
development projects are based on the informed consent of forest
dwelling and forest dependent communities.
Prior information is a crucial necessity for citizens’
involvement in decision-making. Until recently, almost all
information regarding developmental projects was classified. Most
of it is even today. However, some positive trends can be seen.
Several people’s groups, especially the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti
Sangathan (MKSS), have persistently rallied on the issue of right
to information. Courts have also upheld the right to know in
several instances. As a result, we have the Freedom of Information
Act 2002. The Act is still to be gazetted until which time it is
not functional. The operationalisation of the broad preamble of
the legislation which reads as “An Act to provide for freedom to
every citizen to secure access to information under the control of
public authorities, consistent with public interest, in order to
promote openness, transparency and accountability in
administration and in relation to matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto”, will be possible only when citizens and
groups actively seek information relevant to their livelihoods and
environments from government departments and regulatory bodies.
The campaign by MKSS made the right to access official records a
part of the assertion of one’s right to life and livelihood, the
most basic of all human rights. What is even more interesting is
that the campaign helped to amend the rules of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act to include people’s right to access
information relating to their panchayati raj institutions.
Several states have already passed enactments supporting the right
to information. Many have been criticised for their list of
exclusions and for a half-hearted effort at making government
processes transparent. But these developments surely herald a
paradigm shift in governance, which was based on secrecy until
now.
These are only a representative sample of the spaces there might
be for citizens and groups to use in order to raise their concerns
about the impacts of proposed developmental projects on their
natural environments and livelihoods, and to ensure that
development planning addresses these concerns adequately. New
enactments such as the Biological Diversity Act 2002 provide space
for local communities to be involved in the decisions regarding
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity through
biodiversity management committees to be created at the level of
the local bodies.
Non-compliance or loopholes of some of these existing provisions
is surely an impediment. When a project is granted clearance
despite strong protests or complete disregard to its being there,
it is a clear indication of the limitations of legal statutes.
Undoubtedly, provisions like public hearings need to have more
influence on the environmental clearance procedures than they have
as of now. Efforts to dilute the affectivity or scope of these
spaces to accommodate the ‘larger’ needs of the country are
also not few. Therefore, more than anything else, there is a need
for political and bureaucratic will for the strengthening and
implementation of these laws. It is also necessary that those for
whom these laws are made be informed of their rights. Without
this, these laws would only remain mere legal documents.
|
