Sunita Narain is director general at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based advocacy and not-for-profit organization. She believes it is important for the new government to come out of the mindset that the environment ministry is a clearances ministry. “It is the ministry of environment and not the ministry of environment clearances,” Narain said in an interview. She said the ministry needs a positive, proactive agenda for environment as people want clean air, clean rivers and don’t want to be smothered under garbage, and there’s need to regenerate forests and protect wildlife. Edited excerpts: The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had portrayed environment and development in conflict with each other. Is this how it is and what should the new government do? We don’t think there is a conflict. In the UPA government, there was no project that was ever rejected. There has been a 1% rejection rate as far as environment clearances are concerned and a 3% rejection rate as far as forest clearances are concerned. And the number of projects that have been cleared in the UPA regime are far more than projects that have been installed. So, it is very clear to us that there was no problem in the clearance. There is a problem in the fact that clearances are delayed. There is no doubt in our mind that the clearance system is broken. There are four to five clearances. Each agency has its own procedure for the clearances, but the process is not helping the environment. We have put an agenda for the new government. That the environment and forest system is badly broken and it needs to be repaired, it needs to be reformed so that it can safeguard the environment, and also streamline the process to reduce delays for the industry and make the system more credible. We are saying consolidate all the clearances including forest, environment, wildlife and coastal under one. It will be a big benefit for industry. It will also improve environmental integrity. And prepare environmental impact assessment report to do a detailed scrutiny of the project. In our view, the rejection rate of projects should go up even though the delay should be less. The public hearing process should be available in the public domain. There should be a focus on monitoring because nobody monitors whether the companies are compliant with the conditions or not. The Supreme Court had told the ministry to set up an environmental regulator. How urgent and important is it for the new government to do so? We have said that the government should not be bullied by the Supreme Court into setting up this regulator without thinking through what should be its clear structure. We have seen regulators becoming institutions where corporate capture is easy. If you do a regulator without thinking through it, then you will have a more truncated system. We don’t fix what is broken; we just keep making new institutions. The basic problem is, pollution control boards are defunct. Their autonomy has been taken away, (there is) shortage of technical staff and they have become cash-strapped institutions. A regulator cannot work without institutions which will go out and do the monitoring and testing, and that has to be done by the pollution control boards. We are not fixing the structure. We are telling the government to internally reform. How significant is the online clearance system that the new government started? It’s a non-step. It means nothing. This is just tamashebaazi (publicity stunt) and if the industry is satisfied, then well and good, but we are not satisfied. The problem has been that all issues of environment clearances were done based on industry concerns and therefore, there was overenthusiasm to find a way to destroy the clearance system. There is a clear, motivated agenda which is orchestrated by the industry, which wants to derail and undermine the environmental process and it is our misfortune that the environment ministry is playing into its hands. Instead of improving the process for environmental integrity, instead of reducing delays, it is allowing this shouting to become louder.

There is talk of diluting norms on inviolate areas. What do you think of that? The Forest (Conservation) Act (FC Act) still stays, and this was being done to improve the efficiency of the clearance process. In all areas, industry needs to go through the FC Act. And instead of doing violate and inviolate areas, which is not possible country-wide, we should focus on improving the process of decision-making of the system of forest clearance itself. The FC system is a broken system where only the number of trees are counted, but their impact on the area is not considered. Surely, we can use better technology, use better systems and consolidate the process. How significant is the addition of the phrase climate change to the ministry’s name? We are happy that the government has done it. Climate change is a very major issue for the world and India. We know that we are vulnerable to climate change and the impact of climate change will be worst felt by us. We are already seeing unreliable rainfall across India and if the monsoon is affected, the country has problems. It is also important to show that we are taking domestic action to show seriousness. It is important to show leadership and demand more action.