The ‘Red’ Book Undocumented story of EIA consultant organizations accreditation By NABET MAY 2014 NABET Secretariat A S S E S S R S O EIA Consultant Unaccredited EIA Consultants Stay Order CPCB Empanelled Experts QCI MOM Review of Decision NABET Executives New Applicants NABET Advisor
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The ‘Red’ Book
Undocumented story of EIA
consultant organizations accreditation
By NABET
MAY 2014
NABET Secretariat
A
S
S
E S
S
R
S
O
EIA Consultant
Unaccredited EIA Consultants
Stay Order
CPCB
Empanelled Experts
QCI MOM
Review of Decision
NABET Executives
New Applicants
NABET Advisor
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Preface
Today Indian economy is depending on the 'green laws' of the country and during the last 5
years it was evident in terms of GDP growth. However, the biggest challenges are ahead in
front of the nation is 'unemployment' and developmental projects are inevitable for the
country but not at the cost of ecology and environment.
Many industrialists and even the government felt that Indian green laws are monotonous,
time consuming and doesn't support for nations development. Plenty of developmental
projects create enormous jobs for the country and today these projects were kept dust ridden
at Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India racks.
Yet, another contributing factor for the same was induction of accreditation system of EIA
consultant organisation by NABET. MoEF had utterly failed in implementing the provisions
of EIA Notification, 2006 and in order to hide the discrepancies made by MoEF, NABET was
inducted to control over poor environmental consultants. MoEF didn't worry about to
improve its own mechanism of EAC and SEACs. However, MoEF through NABET targeted
consultants to bring the quality of EIA.
It was fun that NABET being existed in the country to develop the quality aspects in various
sectors is directly involving in collection of bribe and blatantly the scheme made by NABET
is 'illogical, unscientific and biased'. NABET sheltered retired officials of MoEF and Public
Sector Undertakings for assessments who are not even carry out single EIA studies in their
life time.
Various environmental experts, scientific community and including MoEF officials didn't
ready to accept the scheme and sent various comments to MoEF to rule out draft gazette
notification published by MoEF to made the scheme mandatory in the month of July 2013.
Therefore, it is urgency and need of the hour and responsibility of the new government to
wholesomely reject the irrational scheme enacted by UPA government and this document
entitled 'The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation
by NABET' is an 'eye opener' to MOEF and new government.
Indian Environmental Consultant organisations are expecting ' achhe din aane waale hain'.
Date: 29.05.2014
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Statistics of Accreditation 6
2.1 State wise list of organizations applied for accreditation and no. of
organizations accredited by NABET
6
2.2 Status of Accreditation in India 7
2.3 Status of Accreditation in Northern states 7
2.4 Status of Accreditation in North-Eastern states 7
2.5 Status of Accreditation in Eastern states 8
2.6 Status of Accreditation in Southern states 8
2.7 Status of Accreditation in Central states 8
2.8 Status of Accreditation in Western states 9
3 Why to Cancel NABET? 10
3.1 When there is a system for appraisal of EIA reports by EAC at MoEF, why
we need another scheme?
10
3.2 Monopoly of NABET 11
3.3 Qualification and experience of Assessors and Committee Members 12
3.4 Creation of Unemployment 14
3.5 Fees prescribed are exorbitant 15
3.6 How two assessors of different background assess all 12 functional area
experts?
16
3.7 Lack of transparency in assessment 16
3.8 Conflict of Interest and no need for NABET, under present composition of
SEACs/ EACs & NABET committees
22
3.9 Latest judgment of NGT affirming that the O.M. has no legal sanctity 26
3.10 Helping each other attitude between subordinate officers / Directors and the
Senior Bureaucrats at MoEF
27
3.11 Blatantly ignoring of Court Orders by NABET & MOEF 27
3.12 Incompetent operation of NABET/ QCI 28
3.13 Other irrational issues in NABET scheme 28
4 Constructive Suggestions 37
5 Conclusion 39
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
In order to improve the quality of Environment Impact Assessment reports prepared under
EIA, Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF) introduced 'Scheme for Accreditation of EIA Consultant Organizations' through National
Accreditation Board for Education & Training (NABET), Quality Council of India in December 2009
(Annexure - 1). The basis of the introduction of the scheme is not available with MOEF since MOEF
has not conducted any study on faulty EIA’s nor has any statistics to prove the assumption that EIA’s
are faulty. Several RTIs have been filed over the last years to obtain this information, but to no avail.
Without understanding the factual positions on ground and competence of NABET, MoEF made the
scheme compulsory in a short span of time and the result is evident today that the entire scheme is
described as 'biased, unscientific, illegal and illogical'.
Plenty of EIA consultant organizations have been rejected by giving false and unethical
justifications in the last 3 years and NABET assessors and ineligible secretariat is directly involving in
making the decisions for the country and created a havoc. Various environmental professional and
young graduates are directly thrown out to street and huge amount of unemployment exists in the
environmental sector and the youngsters find its difficulty to sustain in the sector. As a result, NABET
and its assessors sheltered under the umbrella of MoEF for causing social injustice to the country
which is legally unjustifiable. Various consultant organizations in the country questioned the said
scheme and its aberration in various High Courts and obtained stay order for the entire scheme.
Due to the immense pressure of assessors and NABET secretariat, MoEF published the draft
gazette stating the scheme is mandatory by inviting public comments. However, most of the
environmental experts in the country sent their apprehensions to MoEF stating the entire scheme was
developed to create jobs for retired bureaucrats, MoEF officials, officials from PSUs, etc and the
leadership for the entire scheme was set out by ex-secretary of MoEF. During his tenure at MoEF, he
initiated the scheme, went on to retire from MOEF and join QCI as Chairman of the accreditation
committee and is now the Chairman, QCI. The bureaucratic nexus between IAS officers makes it
impossible for succeeding Secretaries of MOEF to break the stronghold of QCI on MOEF.
Off course, in the name of the improving quality of EIA, certain white elephants were
benefited directly at NABET secretariat and indirectly as assessors. The situation has deteriorated in
such a way that, MoEF doesn't have any control on the NABET and it is evident from their minutes of
meeting published in their website.
At the outset it may be pointed out that the issuance of the draft notification permitting only
those environment consultant organizations who are accredited by QCI or NABET for a particular
sector or area is impermissible as the said issue of the excessive delegation of power by the MOEF to
QCI/NABET is sub judice before various High Courts of the country. It is relevant to take note that
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 2
various High Courts have stayed the operation of the office memorandums and subsequent Scheme
issued by QCI / NABET, therefore, the present act of MOEF in issuing the draft notification dated
19.07.2013 to incorporate the provision of ratifying the role of QCI / NABET while under challenge
before various courts, amounts to interference in the administration of justice which is impermissible.
It appears that MOEF vide the draft notification is endeavoring to cover its previous illegalities and
irregularities committed in order to give legal sanctity to QCI / NABET, which at present is acting in
contravention of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the
Act).
It is pertinent to state that the action on part of MOEF in delegating its rulemaking power to
QCI/NABET is excessive and in direct contravention of the provisions of the Act and all action taken
by QCI/ NABET is a complete nullity and without jurisdiction, therefore, the issuance of the draft
notification is nothing but an afterthought. The legislature has been provided with vide powers of
delegation however it is subject to the limitation that it cannot delegate uncontrolled powers. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a catena of judgments, laid down that the legislature may, after laying
down the legislative policy, confer discretionary or administrative powers to work out details ―within
the framework of the legislative policy‖.
For the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing
controlling and abating environmental pollution, MOEF ought to have some basis to conclude that in
absence of recognized consultant the quality of environment is suffering. Furthermore, it is also
pertinent to mention Accreditation is not the guarantee that EIA report prepared by Accredited
consultants will compulsorily be cleared by various Appraisal Committees, hence the purpose of
accreditation is questionable.
What is relevant to understand here, whether, over the past 4 years, since the illegal
delegation of powers by MOEF to QCI/ NABET, has the quality of EIA Reports improved?
The whole objective of EIA notification 2006 was to make the Environment Clearance
procedure quicker and faster compare to earlier notification. The current status is all projects –
irrespective of size or sector or location or cost or environment impacts are getting delayed beyond
any reasonable time. The objective itself is getting defeated. The proposed amendment will make the
things worse and getting EC will become a task rather than creating a project. This will not be good
for the country as well as for the health of already sick economy. With existing consultants-
accredited or non- accredited – projects are not getting approval in reasonable time period. After the
proposed amendment, very few consultants will be in the field to prepare EIA and EMP – ultimately
resulting in paralyzing the EC system. Over a period of time, it will come to stand still. In view of
this, it is not advisable to introduce a scheme which will result in only delay in environment clearance.
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 3
It is said that by bringing the accreditation scheme, quality of EIA and EMP report will
improve. We agree that there has to be continual improvement in consultants’ reports, but we do not
agree with the scheme by which it has been assumed that quality will improve. The Ministry should
come out with quantitative data indicating the difference between EIA reports prepared by accredited
and non accredited consultants. The accreditation scheme was introduced in the year 2009 and now
you should have complete set of data regarding quality of EIA/EMP reports prepared by various
organizations. In the absence of such data, it is unrealistic to bring the notification and make the
accreditation compulsory. The scheme itself has no mechanism for self-improvement and NABET has
passed the onus of training consultants to NGO’s like CSE (representative of whom is also member of
NABET committee), who themselves have never prepared an EIA report. The incompetency of CSE
is evident from their comments available in their own website on EIAs which was awarded
environmental clearance.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India issued an Office
Memorandum dated 2nd December 2009 making it mandatory for all EIA Consultants to have the
accreditation from NABET/QCI. As per the said memorandum an EIA / EMP Report prepared by
non-accredited EIA Consultants will not be entertained after 30th June 2010. There were several
Office Memorandums issued thereafter. All the OMs and the scheme of accreditation has been
challenged before various high courts of the country being Gujarat, Karnataka, Delhi, Odisha,
Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, West Bengal etc, vide Writ Petition No. SCA 10311 OF 2012, SCA
4979 of 2012, SCA 4974 of 2012, SCA 1782 of 2013, SCA 9679 of 2013, SCA 9680 of 2013
[Gujarat], SB Civil WP No. 3471 of 2013 [Rajasthan], WP 4651(W) of 2013, WP 13896 (W) of 2013
[Kolkata], WP (C) 12639/2012 [Orissa], CWP 10832 of 2012 (O&M) [Punjab & Haryana] and WP
1530-1531/2012 (GM-RES) [Bengaluru]. MOEF is well aware that the Hon’ble High Courts across
the country have not only issued notice but also granted stay in the said Writ Petition. It appears that
the MOEF to nullify these orders, has issued the proposed draft notification. This seems to be
vindictive in nature and biased mind for bringing the accreditation scheme. The right course should
have been calling the Association of Environment Consultants as well as aggrieved parties who
approached to high court and discuss the issue and at least try to understand the view points of the
consultants.
The Constitution of India has provided freedom to professionally qualified people to practice
in the area of their expertise. People with qualification of M.B.B.S. are allowed to practice without
any accreditation. Similarly citizens with law degree are doing practice in courts. The chartered
accountants, company secretaries, architects, structural engineers and several other equally important
professions have no such scheme of accreditation. The professions are managed by simple registration
with respective professional bodies. It is difficult to understand why the MOEF is bent upon bringing
such notification to take away the fundamental right of environment consultants. It would have been
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 4
well appreciated if MOEF could support in creating legal identity of Environment Consultants
organization and in turn the association can provide registration of environment consultants or firms.
The association can take care of professional ethics and improving quality of EIA/EMP reports.
Without prejudice to our previous contentions, it is pointed out, in the absence of any checks
and balances by MOEF against QCI, the entire scheme formulated by QCI/NABET is ill conceived
with only target to earn money by NABET and its associated people- so called assessor and
committee members. The assessor and committee members are all retired bureaucrats and/or
academics. Hardly anybody is having real consultancy exposure- leave apart experience. It has now
become a ―money making racket‖ where the QCI/NABET deliberately does not carry out its due
diligence at the relevant stages, leading to unfair rejections of the applications. It will not be wrong to
say that QCI/NABET has turned out to be “Environmental Mafia”.
The draft Gazette Notification by MoEF (S.O. 2204(E)) was published on 19.07.2013 and
more than 10 months have passed and so far the final notification has not come. As learnt from
MoEF, the validity of any draft Gazette Notification is for 6 months only and within which if the
final notification is to be published or else the draft Gazette Notification become null and void.
Therefore, in effect MoEF understood the gravity of the situation and dropped the idea of issuance
of Gazette Notification. This is a welcome sign on the part of MoEF.
Numerous applications have been rejected on frivolous grounds or after the final stage of
office assessment on account of incomplete documents that ought to have been pointed out at earlier
Stages I or II by QCI. This is done only after money in the form of “fees” is extracted from the
consultant organizations. This practice is strongly opposed.
The MOEF has formed various committees for different sectors and invited experts from a
range of fields to evaluate EIA/EMP reports before granting Environment Clearance. In other words,
it has out sourced the experienced man power for appraisal of reports. It is good and appreciable step.
But in NABET scheme – more emphasis is on in- house full time people rather than out sourcing to
academically qualified and experienced people for different categories. This is vital and biggest issue
of opposition of the scheme.
The collusion and manipulation on account of the Scheme is writ at large in as much as it is
incomprehensible as to how members of the SEAC / SEIAA / EAC’s are also members of
Accreditation / Surveillance/ Assessment Committees of the QCI/NABET and furthermore, officials
retiring from MOEF / CPCB are immediately joining QCI/ NABET in various capacities.
Another instance of glaring contradiction is the difference in qualifications prescribed by the
scheme for an EIA coordinator and statutory qualifications prescribed for being a member of the
SEAC/ SEIAA:- The qualification prescribed for becoming EIA coordinator, the scheme requires
Bachelor’s degree in engineering or master’s degree in science with minimum seven years’
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 5
experience whereas as regards the qualification and experience for becoming member of state level
expert committee requirements for appraisal of EIA report- it is mentioned in EIA notification of
2006. The requirement is bachelor’s degree in engineering or master’s degree in science with
minimum four years experience. It means more experienced person with minimum seven years will
get his/her EIA report appraised by less experienced person. It is for the MOEF to respond whether
such stark contradiction can be permitted and whether the qualifications prescribed in the Scheme can
override the qualifications statutorily prescribed by MOEF.
An issue of sectarian expert is non-digestible. An environment expert can predict impacts
based on specific environment issues involve in particular project. One cannot distinguish cement
industry environment expert/ power industry environment expert/fertilizer industry environment
expert and so on. There could be more exposure of specific sector for some individuals. But it does
not mean that person cannot perform in other sectors. The environment consultant or firm could be
expert in environment and related regulatory issues. The NABET requirement of exposure and EIA
preparation of that sector is illogical.
It is also worth mentioning that 2 assessors visit and conduct interview for all EC’s and
FAE’s, which is impermissible. It is very hard to comprehend that how can 2 people are said to be
experts on all sectors and functional areas for which a firm has applied.
Any accreditation scheme in any sector is an optional scheme where one applies for
accreditation in order to establish its quality for better market standing. Under the present Scheme,
instead of enabling consultant organizations and potential clients, works more like a ―licensing‖
scheme. The consultant who has not been granted ―license‖ (accreditation) cannot work at all. It is
difficult to understand the logic behind such scheme.
Thus there are fundamental objections against the scheme. We welcome streamlining of
environment consultancy services, but not in the manner prescribed by NABET/QCI.
In this reference, it is worth mentioning scheme of recognition of environment auditor
implemented by Gujarat Pollution Control Board at the behest of Hon. Gujarat High Court vide order
dated 20/12/1996. The scheme is working nicely and with effective monitoring of GPCB, it has
helped industries and statutory authorities for improvement of environment.
We are not writing here to dilute the purpose of the scheme but we are here to show case how
the scheme is unscientific and benefiting certain section of people in the country. The entire scheme
was not formulated through grass root approach and is best example on how the top-down approach
in the country fails to address the concerns of the common man.
Evidences are crystal clear from last 5 years on how the scheme fall down in the country and
at the end we are come out with a alternative solution to the problem of improving the quality of EIA
reports prepared by the consultants.
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 6
Chapter 2. Statistics of Accreditation
2.1. State wise list of organizations applied for accreditation and no. of organizations accredited
by NABET
Table - 1 List of accredited organizations in the country
Sl.No Name of the State No. of Applications filed No. of Accredited Organizations
1 Andra Pradesh 25 19
2 Arunachal Pradesh - -
3 Assam 3 2
4 Bihar 1 1
5 Chhattisgarh 4 1
6 Goa 2 1
7 Gujarat 34 20
8 Haryana 25 19
9 Himachal Pradesh 1 1
10 Jammu and Kashmir 3 1
11 Jharkhand 6 6
12 Karnataka 21 7
13 Kerala 3 3
14 Madya Pradesh 5 2
15 Maharashtra 48 27
16 Manipur - -
17 Meghalaya - -
18 Mizoram - -
19 Nagaland - -
20 Orissa 15 6
21 Punjab 3 -
22 Rajasthan 15 7
23 Sikkim - -
24 Tamil Nadu 30 10
25 Tripura - -
26 Uttaranchal 6 1
27 Uttar Pradesh 11 5
28 West Bengal 21 9
29 Delhi 49 20
30 Lakshadeep - -
31 Pondicherry - -
32 Andaman and Nicobar Islands - -
33 Chandigarh - -
34 Dadar and Nagar Haveli - -
35 Daman and Diu - -
Source: NABET website, statistics as on 13.05.2014
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 7
2.2. Status of Accreditation in India
2.3. Status of Accreditation in Northern states
2.4. Status of Accreditation in North-Eastern states
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 8
2.5. Status of Accreditation in Eastern states
2.6. Status of Accreditation in Southern states
2.7. Status of Accreditation in Central states
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 9
2.8. Status of Accreditation in Western states
It is prudent to mention here that the accreditations are misleading in their numbers. Of the
total consultants in the accreditation list, only 28 organizations are completely accredited while the
balance are provisionally accredited. The provisional accreditation is granted for a three months
period during which the applicant organization has to fulfill the deficits identified in the audit, for
grant of complete accreditation. It is important to note, that a provisionally accredited organisation
remains in the provisionally accredited for not just more than three months but even years. Therefore,
what is the sanctity of this system? In fact, it is a mockery. Furthermore, how can any organization
operate with a the ―provisional accreditation‖ sword hanging on their necks, never knowing when the
arbitrariness of NABET can eliminate them from the accreditation system overnight.
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 10
Chapter 3. Why to cancel NABET?
3.1 When there is a system for appraisal of EIA reports by EAC at MoEF, why we need another
scheme?
As per EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, EAC at MoEF and SEAC and
SEIAA at state level exists for review of EIA reports supported by various technical staff. However,
when there is a crystal clear guidelines for choosing EAC/SEAC members in the notification and their
duty is to review the reports prepared by the consultants and of necessary cross verify the authenticity
by conducting site inspections.
NABET during the surveillance assessment or during the re-accreditation of the accredited
consultant organization, reviews the EIA reports submitted by the consultant organization to them
(though it is not a mandate given by MoEF). The observations (shortcomings) of the EIA report by
NABET are published in their website.
You may please note that, by the time NABET reviews the EIA report, the project (for which
EIA study was conducted by the consultant organization) might have been already accorded
Environmental Clearance by MoEF (or the concerned SEIAA of the State) months ago and substantial
investment has already been made in the project.
A typical case giving NABET observations & its repercussions is quoted below:-
Proceedings at MOEF
Project EIA of Exploration, Testing of wells and
Commercial Exploration of Mannargudi CBM
Block, MG-CBM-2008/IV, in
District Thiruvarur & Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu by
M/s Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd.
(GEECL)
Consultant M/s Kadam Environmental Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,
Vadodara, Gujarat.
Date of issuance of Environmental Clearance by
MoEF 12/09/2012
Date of publishing of observations of the
consultant organization by NABET 04/10/2013
NABET Observations on the said EIA report during the re-accreditation (NABET RA MOM
dated 04.10.2014).
a. In identification of impacts, significance aspects not discussed.
b. Reliance on secondary sources are dominating; primary data collection is low.
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 11
c. For drilling rigs, major mitigation measures are at the time of construction phase and not during
operation phase; legal issues are not adequately addressed.
Implications
(i) A NGO or an environmentalist can file a case at NGT/Supreme Court stating that the
Environmental Clearance issued by MoEF / SEIAA did not look at the observations made by
NABET, a body approved and constituted by MoEF for improving the quality of EIA. MoEF / SEIAA
along with the project proponent can be dragged to the Court by the action of a body created by
MoEF.
(ii) Currently, the practice of extortion of money by the vested groups from the project proponent at
different parts of the county for trivial matters are rampant. They will use the ―observations‖
published by NABET as a tool for extortion of money from the project proponent since it is easily and
readily available to them on a platter i.e. platter of “NABET’s website”.
(iii) Why Shri. B. Sen Gupta (Former Member Secretary, CPCB) is currently member of EAC,
Industrial Committee, MoEF and Member of NABET Committee didn't look at the above
observations while granting Environmental Clearance at MoEF for the said project and why is
allowed to publish the above observations in NABET website? It is unclear. The same person plays
some role at EAC and some other role at NABET.
3.2 Monopoly of NABET
Still the unanswered mystery was - why MoEF choose NABET? Why can't other organizations in
India for the accreditation purposes?
The answers for the above questions are simple and below;
1. Former Secretary of MoEF currently with NABET made conspicuous lobby with MoEF
officials on behalf of NABET to get control on environmental issues in the country and his
vested interests are crystal clear that they need power even after the retirement and creating
parallel MoEF in the name of NABET.
2. Look at the profile of NABET secretariat committee members and assessors. They have all
enjoyed as members, chairman at EAC and other various committees at MoEF after the
enactment of EIA Notification, 2006. And now there were no further opportunities at MoEF
for any other committees and hence they sheltered under NABET for doing wrong things.
3. Hence, it is clear that, QCI and NABET employed retired officials of MoEF and made lobby
with MoEF to obtain this scheme.
The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET
Page | 12
3.3 Qualification and experience of Assessors and Committee Members
The education qualification and experience matters for any assessment. As per the scheme,
requires 12 functional area experts. However, NABET itself doesn’t have qualified staff to assess all
12 functional area experts. Most of the staff at NABET are ISO 9001:2008 QMS assessors and very
few are having practical essence of doing EIA studies. Whereas in the case of assessors, it was
shocking that, they do not even conducted single EIA studies during their tenure become the
assessors.
Table - 2 Qualification and experience of NABET secretariat staff and assessors