EDITORIAL : THE DAILY HINDU, INDIA

Green reform

Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh must be commended for his frank comments on the state of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) process. Many well-regarded scientists have been making the point that the EIA, a mechanism instituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in the early phase of India's economic liberalisation and amended in later years, has been turned into a joke because it is left to the project proponent to arrange for the EIA report. This dyfunctional system has produced only a thriving industry of consultants. Many of them without the requisite qualifications; some are nothing more than paid pipers. It is no surprise that several reports submitted by these consultants have been exposed as plain cut-and-paste reproductions of other publications. Among the prominent examples of ill-advised shortcuts leading to flawed conclusions is the Kudremukh iron ore mining project in Karnataka, which was eventually ordered closed. In that case, only rigorous assessment by the Indian Institute of Science and other agencies produced evidence of harm to fragile ecology; comprehensive study by the Centre for Wildlife Studies documented environmental damage on account of the sediment load in the Bhadra river. Evidently, the earlier EIA reports based on rapid assessments provided little insight. This experience is not unique and there is a strong case to introduce stringent checks now. Reform should begin with the choice of agency to conduct the impact assessment, and include the setting of wide terms of reference.

The task of reforming the EIA process is a challenging one for Mr. Ramesh, who has initiated welcome steps to introduce transparency in his Ministry. State-level authorities must also be made partners in the effort because some categories of environmental clearances come within their ambit. Independent studies of the working of expert appraisal committees formed under the EIA Notification of 2006 show that the rejection rate for projects in sensitive sectors such as construction, industry, thermal power plants, and mining is suspiciously low. The Union Ministry's discovery that some consultants submitted wrong reports, resulting in penal action, is proof positive of systemic rot. The cure lies in genuine, science-based EIA. All this is not to say that fresh barriers must be erected to development. What needs to be emphasised is the importance of assessing externalities associated with individual projects and consider them in perspective. The loss of ecology has irreversible, inter-generational consequences. The protection of air, water, soil health, and biodiversity should be primary environmental imperatives. 

Open-ended war

The announcement by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) that it is to enforce the United Nations no-fly zone over Libya confirms the extent of confusion over western policy on Libya. The alliance's Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, says it will command only the no-fly zone, and admits that there will be two operations, one run by NATO and the other, comprising the arms embargo and air strikes — which Turkey says go beyond the United Nations resolution on intervention — by a “coalition.” There may be yet more squabbling to come, not least because the decision on the transfer of command was preceded by a week of angry disputes among NATO's 28 members. Turkey, in particular, objects strongly to what it sees as French plans to control the scope and nature of the current U.N.-backed action. It has also accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of using the confrontation with Tripoli as a launching pad for his own re-election campaign.

Such issues, however, only form a subset of wider problems. One of those is domestic public support. In the United Kingdom, backing — usually high at the start of such military adventurism — is 45 per cent, with 35 per cent against; that is even worse than the 53-39 per cent reported when the illegal 2003 Iraq invasion began. In the United States, 74 per cent favour multilateral action to protect Libyans against their current dictatorship; but 79 per cent express concern over the continuing violence in Libya. In North Africa and West Asia, public feeling against the intervention is hardening rapidly, not least because of French Interior Minister Claude Guéant's foolish comment that his country was leading a “crusade” to stop President Muammar Qadhafi killing fellow-Libyans. Secondly, President Obama, whose administration refuses to call the Libya mission a war, is under pressure to explain the policy and to specify an exit strategy. His attempt to transfer command to NATO and his European allies will achieve neither; the U.S. will remain the major participant, but involving NATO will reduce the accountability of the warmongers to their electorates. The absence of clear aims, furthermore, heightens the risk of an open-ended conflict, into which the foreign participants will almost certainly be drawn more and more deeply — with the additional risk that the main aim becomes regime change and not civilian protection. In view of the vagueness of the U.N. Security Council resolution on the no-fly zone, it is regrettable that Russia and China abstained instead of vetoing the resolution that has enabled this military aggression and expanding war in an already tormented region.