UNEP
and ECO to cooperate on environment management
Tehran, Bangkok: The
United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) and the Economic
Cooperation Organization (ECO) headquartered in Tehran have
agreed to cooperate for strengthening environmental management
in the ECO region.
UNEP Executive Director
Klaus Toepfer and ECO Secretary General Askhat Orazbay signed
a Memorandum of Understanding at the ECO Secretariat offices
in Tehran on August 18, 2004.
The agreement identifies
the potential for joint activities to increase the use of
renewable energy, through UNEP's Solar and Wind Energy Resource
Assessment project, to strengthen environmental law making,
enhance environmental education and training programmes, catalyse
more eco-friendly tourism development and improve environmental
monitoring and assessment.
"Over the past
decade we have seen a growth and strengthening of inter-governmental
organizations in response to regional needs," said Mr
Toepfer. "This trend provides a tremendous opportunity
to give effect to the global goals made at forums such as
the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg."
ECO is an inter-governmental
regional organization, established by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey,
and now embracing also Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The organisation's purpose is to promote the socio-economic
development of member states, including through regional cooperation
in the field of environment, following adoption of an ECO
Ministerial Declaration on Environment in 2002.
The Memorandum of Understanding
also identifies the potential for strengthened links between
the scientific community and policy makers, and for further
development of the Regional Environmental Action Plan for
Central Asia, developed by UNEP and the Central Asian governments
recently.
Late last year UNEP
assisted countries of the region to negotiate and agree a
Framework Convention for the Protection of the Caspian Sea.
In March it signed a Memorandum of Understanding for Environmental
Cooperation with the
Department of the Environment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Mr Toepfer has been
in Tehran for a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment
and Development, a high-level regional 'think-tank', chaired
by former-Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Yoshimoto.
Mr Toepfer told the
Forum that to cope with a rapidly growing urban middle class
in Asia, expected to reach 600 million within a decade, the
concepts of "sustainable consumption" and "the
life-cycle economy"- being discussed by policy makers
in China and Japan - needed to be advocated more strongly.
"Once new infrastructure
is built it is going to last for 100 years. The newly affluent
in Asia must have access to zero-emission housing, to hybrid
or fuel cell cars and/or clean public transport systems, and
to eco-friendly residential and commercial suburbs,"
Mr Toepfer said.
He told the forum that
while the Millennium Development Goals and the overarching
need for poverty reduction would continue to be the major
challenge for the Asia-Pacific region, sub-regional institutions
and their targeted initiatives had an important part to play
in making the goal of environmental sustainability real and
achievable.
|
|
OPEN
LETTER TO THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
3 September, 2004:
Why is the Government Systematically
Undermining the Environment?
As people's groups, NGOs, and
mass movements, we are deeply concerned and anguished at the
way governments over the last few years have severely undermined
the importance of environmental issues in decision-making.
In particular, the role of the Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF) seems increasingly to be that of simply a clearing
agency for unsustainable and destructive economic and commercial
activities. To make matters worse, the MoEF appears to be
systematically undermining the participation of citizens in
its decision-making process, and has become more and more
closed in its functioning. Lack of transparency not only reduces
public participation, it is also a way to avoid serious scientific
scrutiny. These trends seem to have become worse in the last
few years, such that the lay person is left wondering: is
the mandate of the MoEF to help industries and 'developers'
by-pass or get over environmental regulations, rather than
safeguard the country's environment?
Several actions of the MoEF (and of GOI in general) point
to the following broad trends:
1. Severe reduction in opportunities available to citizens
to input into MoEF (and GOI) decisions, and in the seriousness
with which MoEF considers such inputs;
2. Decline in the ability and willingness of MoEF to ensure
that 'development' processes and projects (e.g. in hydro-power
and infrastructure) are oriented towards integrating environmental
and social concerns.
3. Declining emphasis on improving regulation and regulatory
mechanisms, and instead pushing for 'voluntary' and 'market
based' instruments.
Examples of the above (which have been clearly pointed
out to the government) include:
1. The notification of the Biological Diversity Rules
2004: These Rules notified under the Biological Diversity
Act 2002, are scientifically unsound, considerably undermine
the role of local communities in safeguarding biodiversity
and traditional knowledge, and have completely ignored the
very many sound inputs provided by NGOs and activists when
the draft Rules were first put out by MoEF. These Rules actually
dilute the spirit and letter of the Act, which in any case
was not fully adequate in its provisions regarding conservation,
sustainable use, and equity.
2. The dilution of notifications under the Environment
Protection Act: Over the last few years MoEF has considerably
reduced the scope and weakened the provisions of various notifications
and rules under the Environment Protection Act 1986. The promulgation
of this comprehensive Act had in 1986 indicated that the government
was committed to environmental conservation, and towards making
development projects sustainable. However, a series of dilutions
(about 30 in all!) have considerably weakened various notifications
under the Act. The dilutions include: (in the case of the
Environment Impact Assessment notification) public hearings
being dropped for projects such as the widening of highways
and mining leases for major minerals under 25 ha.; (in the
case of Coastal Regulation Zone notification) allowing Special
Economic Zones, effluent treatment plants, industrial salt
pans, and the mining of atomic minerals in coastal areas.
These dilutions have significant impacts. For instance, in
the case of the mining projects, Indian Bureau of Mines data
shows that almost 50% of the mining leases for major minerals
are below 25 ha (and they add up to tremendous environmental
and social destruction).
Simultaneous to these dilutions, regulatory norms are being
eased for developmental projects and industries. A MoEF press
release in June this year on "good practices" to
be adopted to facilitate 'expeditious decision making' stated
that no application (for clearance) will be rejected on procedural
grounds alone. This could mean that applicants could get clearance
even when they provide incomplete and inadequate information.
3. The clearance of 'development' projects without adequate
assessment: There are many shocking instances where MoEF
has given clearance to dams, mining, roads, ports, industries,
and other projects, without an adequate environmental impact
assessment or without ensuring that environmental safeguards
are built into the project. This is not surprising because
increasingly members of various environmental clearance expert
committees of MoEF, have little or no independent environmental
record or credibility. NGOs and community groups have frequently
pointed out such faulty decision-making, and have provided
strong evidence of the dangers posed by such projects, but
have been consistently ignored. Examples of this abound: Lower
Subansiri hydro power project (Arunachal Pradesh), Allain
Duhangan H-E project (Himachal), Teesta Low Dam (W. Bengal),
Bodh Ghat project (Chhattisgarh), Raoghat Bauxite project
(Chhattisgarh), and many others. Some of these projects even
threaten many areas that governments have themselves declared
protected for wildlife.
4. Reluctance to insist that environmental conditionalities
are followed by project proponents: A large number of
development projects cleared by MoEF do not fulfil the conditions
under which they were cleared, yet MoEF has taken action on
hardly any of them.
5. Waste of capacity building funds: A huge loan was
received by MoEF some years ago, for "Environmental Management
Capacity Building Programme" which essentially required:
a) A comprehensive review of the Environmental Clearance Mechanism
; b) Preparation of Manuals for Environment Impact Assessment
; c) Development of an Environmental Information Centre and
d) Environmental Law Capacity Building both for the Ministry
and for other agencies. Yet this process has been developed
with meager consultation, and despite the debt incurred, the
results do not seem to have resulted in any significant improvement
inthe functioning of the MoEF.
6. The framing of a National Environment Policy without
public participation: Having heard that MoEF is drafting
a National Environment Policy, some of us have repeatedly
asked for details on how this is happening and how citizens
can make inputs. A draft was put up on the MoEF website on
21st August, for comments. There has been no other process
of reaching out to the citizens of India for inputs to the
Policy, in particular to local communities who do not access
websites or read English. Moreoever, what is the guarantee
that this Policy will not be pushed through like the Biodiversity
Rules 2004, completely ignoring public inputs?
7. The delaying of the National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (NBSAP): Despite itself facilitating a uniquely
consultative process over four years, to prepare the NBSAP,
MoEF is now delaying its final approval, publication, and
release. The reasons being given are that even as a final
technical report, the draft needs to go through Cabinet approval,
and that it needs to wait for the National Environment Policy
to be finalised (though the process of framing this Policy
began over three years after NBSAP did). We understand the
need for the final NBSAP to get political (cabinet) approval,
but there is no justification for delaying the printing and
public release of the final technical report. MoEF is neither
respecting the effort and time put into this process by tens
of thousands of people, nor its contractual obligation to
the Global Environment Facility and United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) who funded the process.
8. Siding with the building lobby: Rather than help
conserve natural ecosystems against unchecked urban growth,
MoEF has often tried to make the way easier for the building
lobby. For example, instead of supporting people's groups
to protect some of the last remaining forest areas in the
highly polluted city of Delhi, including parts of the Delhi
ridge, MoEF has favoured the lobby that wants to promote the
construction of five star hotels and shopping malls in this
area. This is also despite the fact that these are critical
water catchments and their destruction would result in the
further lowering of an already very low water table in Delhi.
9. Ignoring Supreme Court orders on A&N Islands:
In violation of Supreme Court orders, the MoEF has refused
to close down the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest and Plantation
Development Corporation that has been destroying the forests
and the habitat of the tribals in the islands. Orders to control
mining of sand from the beaches of the islands and deal with
inappropriate tourism too have not been satisfactorily complied
with. In fact, the MoEF even tried to initiate an exercise
to study 'some of the environmental issues related to forestry
and wildlife in the islands', which appeared more an attempt
to solicit "expert" opinion that could be used to
circumvent the concerned orders.
10. Lack of public discussion and transparency on genetic
engineering: Another example of the increasing opaqueness
of functioning in the government is the lack of public participation
in decisions regarding genetic engineering. This risky technology
is being pushed through with no long-term safety tests, and
almost no independent scientific or public inputs.
These are only a few of the many examples where MoEF in particular
and the GOI in general, have undermined environmental issues
and ignored public inputs. In almost all such cases NGOs and
affected people have protested, pointed to violations and
destructive implications, and often even offered alternatives,
yet all this has been systematically ignored. Indeed, resistance
to the trends by sensitive government officials themselves
has been largely sidelined. Worse, there is no accessible
platform on which MoEF (and GOI in general) can be made accountable
to the public. It is not surprising therefore that citizens
have had to take recourse to the courts to obtain justice.
These trends have occurred within the context of both the
previous government and the current one, providing almost
no serious consideration to the environment. The previous
government systematically undid many of the gains of growing
ecological awareness and standards of the earlier decades.
The current governments in its Common Minimum Programme has
almost nothing on the environment. Nor has there been acknowledgement
of the fact that tens of millions of people in India continue
to depend directly on natural resources for their survival,
livelihood, health, and future development with dignity. Indeed
many of the decisions taken by MoEF have further reduced the
access and rights of communities to livelihood resources and
supported 'development' projects that impinge on community
lands and resources.
We do believe, however, that the new government has the
opportunity to reverse this trend. It needs to take at least
the following steps:
1. Providing a legally mandated and explicit role for citizens
(especially local communities) in the decision-making process
within MoEF (and GOI in general). This can be done by including
independent and credible representatives of communities and
civil society in the various expert committees; ensuring that
citizens' inputs in draft notifications and legislation are
considered through a transparent process; strengthening the
public hearing process for 'development' projects; constituting
an independent monitoring and evaluation agency to assess
compliance of environmental conditions and regulations; and
other such measures.
2. Considerably strengthen the mandate and functioning of
the Ministry of Environment and Forests, e.g. by increasing
the number of technical experts and officials who are known
for their commitment to the environment.
3. Centrally integrate environmental considerations across
the entire decision-making process, right from the planning
and design stage of economic sectors and projects and not
only at the final stage of clearance. This includes, the strengthening
of the EIA, clearance, and monitoring procedures.
4. Reviewing the Common Minimum Programme and its implementation
from the environmental perspective, including through a serious
consideration of environmental issues in forums such as the
National Advisory Council (NAC). The NAC is a step towards
more public participation in decision-making, but needs a
greater integration of environmental concerns in its deliberations.
We urge the government to draw up a concrete action plan
on how to take the above and other steps, to significantly
improve the manner in which decisions are taken on environmental
issues. This should include the setting up of an independent
monitoring and evaluation body, comprised of community and
civil society representatives, that can ensure environmental
sensitivity in decision-making. While drawing up such
an action plan, there should be active and meaningful participation
of community organisations, people's movements, NGOs, and
other civil society organisations.
Signed/-
Ashish Kothari, Ravi Agarwal, Shekhar
Singh
Kalpavriksh, Toxics Link, Centre for Equity Studies
On behalf of:
1. Samir Acharya, Society for Andaman and Nicobar Ecology,
Port Blair, A&N Islands
2. Ravi Agarwal, Toxics Link, Delhi
3. Sunderlal Bahuguna, Save Himalaya Movement, Tehri
4. Gautam Bandopadhyay, People's Allaince for Livelihood Rights,
Raipur, Chhatisgarh
5. Jayanta Bandopadhyay, Environmental Expert, Kolkata
6. Amitabh Behar, National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune
7. Erach Bharucha, Bharatiya Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment
Education and Research, Pune
8. Seema Bhatt, Biodiversity Consultant, Delhi
9. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Supreme Court, Delhi
10. Sripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh
11. Debi Goenka, Bombay Environment Action Group, Mumbai
12. Colin Gonsalves, Socio-Legal Information Centre, Delhi
13. Pandurang Hegde, Appiko/Prakruti, Sirsi, Karnataka
14. Ramaswamy Iyer, Former Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources,
Delhi
15. Asmita Kabra, Samrakshan Trust, Delhi/Madhya Pradesh
16. Smitu Kothari, Lokayan, Delhi
17. Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group,
Pune/Delhi
18. Ashok Kumar, Wildlife Trust of India, Delhi
19. Souparna Lahiri, Delhi Forum, Delhi
20. Harsh Mander, Delhi
21. Thomas Mathew , South Asian Conservation Foundation
22. Kisan Mehta, Save Bombay Committee, Mumbai
23. Fr. Victor Moses, St. Xavier's Social Service Society,
Ahmedabad
24. Somnath Nayak, Nagarika Seva Trust, Gurvayankere, Karnataka
25. Satheesh P.V., Deccan Development Society, Pastapur, Andhra
Pradesh
26. Rekha Panigrahi, Vasundhara, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa
27. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Narmada Valley
28. Sujit Patwardhan, Parisar, Pune
29. M.K. Prasad, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishat, Cochi, Kerala
30. Asad Rahmani, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai
31. Sreedhar Ramamurthy, mines, minerals and People/ Academy
of Mountain Environics, Dehradun, Uttaranchal
32. Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign, Delhi
33. Bittu Sahgal, Sanctuary Magazine, Mumbai
34. Salam Rajesh, Manipur Nature Society, Imphal, Manipur
35. Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group, Bangalore, Karnataka
36. Priya Salvi, Prakruti, Mumbai
37. John Samuel, National Social Watch Coalition, Pune
38. Madhu Sarin, Independent consultant, Chandigarh
39. Devinder Sharma, Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security,
Delhi
40. Gam Shimray, All India Coordinating Forum of Adivasi/Indigenous
Peoples, Delhi
41. Samar Singh, Samarpan Foundation, Delhi
42. Shekhar Singh, Centre for Equity Studies, Delhi
43. Indu Prakash Singh, Activist/Researcher, Delhi
44. Neera Singh, Independent Researcher, Bhubaneshwar
45. Aarthi Sridhar, Independent Researcher, Bangalore, Karnataka
46. Bibhab Talukdar, Environmental Activist, Guwahati, Assam
47. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network of Dams, River and
People, Delhi
48. David Thangliana, Editor, Newslink English Daily, Aizawl,
Mizoram
49. Malavika Vartak, Housing and Land Rights Network, Delhi
50. A.C. Zonunmawia, Centre for Environment Protection, Aizwal,
Mizoram
|
