— An investigative analysis of the country’s green approval system
India’s relentless pursuit of infrastructure and industrial expansion often hides the environmental cost until irreversible damage occurs. Every time a hill is blasted for a highway, a forest cleared for a mine, or a coastal zone reclaimed for ports or tourism, the law requires prior environmental, forest, and coastal clearances. Yet the core question remains: how vigilant and accurate are these systems? Experts say the answer is complex — and deeply concerning.
Three Gatekeepers — One Fragile Shield
India’s environmental clearance regime is structured around three core mechanisms:
-
Environmental Clearance (EC): Required under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for industrial, mining, power, and infrastructure projects.
-
Forest Clearance (FC): Mandated by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for projects that use forest land.
-
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Clearance: Granted under the CRZ Notification, 2019 for regulating activities along India’s 7,500-km coastline.
While these systems are meant to prevent irreversible ecological harm, in reality procedural compliance often overshadows ecological judgment.
How the System Works — and Where It Fails
Before receiving approval, a project requires a Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that predicts its environmental consequences. The assessment is reviewed by Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) at the central level and by State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
However, multiple audits and studies reveal systemic weaknesses:
-
Superficial Impact Assessments: EIAs are often prepared by consultants hired by project developers, leading to biased and incomplete studies.
-
Cut-and-Paste Reports: The CAG and civil society groups have found identical text across unrelated EIAs.
-
Public Hearings Ignored: Many hearings are bypassed or conducted with poor notice, excluding affected communities.
-
High Clearance Rate: Central EACs approved over 90% of projects between 2014 and 2023, raising concerns about scrutiny and independence.
-
Weak Post-Clearance Monitoring: Compliance regarding tree replantation, effluent management, or wildlife corridors is poorly enforced, with penalties rarely imposed.
Parameters of Approval: What Should Be Checked
A robust environmental clearance system should examine:
-
Loss of Forest Cover: Exact diversion area, ecological value, and feasibility of compensatory afforestation.
-
Biodiversity Impact: Endangered species, wildlife corridors, and natural drainage networks.
-
Geological Stability: Landslide risk, erosion susceptibility, and impacts of hill-cutting or tunneling.
-
Hydrological Balance: Groundwater recharge, river flow changes, and wetland impacts.
-
Coastal Sensitivity: Distance from High Tide Line, presence of mangroves, nesting grounds, and erosion zones.
-
Socio-Economic Displacement: Impact on tribal and forest-dependent communities.
Despite these requirements, most decisions remain paper-based, with limited field verification and outdated ecological data.
Case Studies — A Pattern of Neglect
-
Himalayan Highway Projects: The Supreme Court’s High-Powered Committee on Char Dham found excessive hill-cutting and debris dumping caused landslides, showing poor enforcement of stability norms.
-
Western Ghats Mining and Quarrying: Despite being an ecologically sensitive zone, projects continue under “conditional clearances,” contradicting the Gadgil and Kasturirangan panel warnings.
-
Coastal Projects in Konkan and Gujarat: CRZ violations, including reclamation and mangrove destruction, often receive post-facto clearance, a practice under judicial scrutiny.
Are We Measuring the Right Things?
India’s environmental metrics tend to emphasise paperwork — the number of trees planted, emission measurements, or decibel levels — rather than ecosystem integrity or long-term sustainability.
The absence of independent audits and real-time ecological monitoring allows violations to persist. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has frequently intervened, advocating for satellite and drone-based monitoring, but enforcement remains fragmented between the Centre, State Pollution Control Boards, and local authorities.
The Way Forward
Experts recommend urgent reforms:
-
Make EIA consultants accountable, with penalties for fraudulent or copied reports.
-
Establish independent ecological audit agencies separate from project proponents.
-
Create public information portals with all project data, minutes, and compliance reports.
-
Mandate post-clearance inspections and satellite monitoring.
-
Strengthen the role of local communities and Gram Sabhas beyond token consultation.
Conclusion: Between Growth and Green Truth
India’s challenge is not a choice between development and environmental protection — it is ensuring that development does not silently erase what cannot be restored. Projects that destroy mountains, forests, and coastal ecosystems may bring short-term benefits, but without vigilant, science-based clearances, they threaten long-term ecological security and public safety.
True progress will come not when every project receives clearance, but when every clearance genuinely protects what it claims to safeguard — India’s fragile natural balance.
