diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index d116f54..16ce658 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -12,19 +12,19 @@
  
  <script>
     var sites = [
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw Draft EIA 2020 [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] &body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw Draft EIA 2020 [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] &body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw Draft EIA 2020 [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] &body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw Draft EIA 2020 [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] &body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw the draft EIA notification, 2020 [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] and defer the process of public comments in the light of the Covid-2019 pandemic&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p><strong>Subject: </strong>Withdraw the draft EIA notification, 2020 [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] and defer the process of public comments in the light of the Covid-2019 pandemic</p><p>Dear Mr. Mishra,</p><p>This is with reference to the draft EIA notification, 2020 which has been uploaded on the environment ministry’s website on 12.3.2020 seeking public comments within sixty days of the issuance of the notification. We are deeply concerned that this draft notification has been put out in the midst of a national health crisis. As you are aware, most of the country is under lockdown and there are severe restrictions on movement in public places. Most offices are closed and staff are working from home. These restrictions may be indefinite and it is not clear when public life and work can resume.</p><p>The long-term public health, social and economic impacts of this global pandemic are yet to be ascertained. The EIA notification is an important regulation through which the impacts of land use change, water extraction, tree felling, pollution, waste and effluent management for industrial and infrastructure projects are to be studied and used in developmental decision-making. Any change in this law has a direct bearing on the living and working conditions of people and the ecology.</p><p>Therefore, it is critical that the government provides suitable and adequate opportunity for those impacted or likely to be affected by the design and implementation of EIA notification. Opportunities to understand and discuss the implications of the proposed amendments may be severely hindered due to the present health emergency with restricted public movement, social distancing and challenges to everyday life activities. These restrictions also make it impossible to disseminate information about the notification to communities who deserve to know and influence the notification.</p><p>We therefore request the environment ministry to:</p><ul><li>Immediately, withdraw the proposed amendments of the Draft EIA notification 2020.</li></ul><ul><li>Consider reissuing the draft only after health conditions related to Covid-19 and civic life is normalized across the country.</li></ul><ul><li>Ensure that there are wide spread and informed public discussions on the implication of these amendments.</li></ul><ul><li>A full disclosure of the nature of comments received and the reasons for acceptance and rejection of these comments, prior to the issuance of the final amendments.</li></ul><p>We do hope that the environment ministry will uphold its obligations towards informed public participation like the commitment to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and also the Principles of Natural Justice, while taking a considered view on the proposed amendments to the EIA notification, 2020.</p><p>Sincerely</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p><p>Copy to:</p><ul><li>Geeta Menon, Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)</li></ul><p>Official email ID for responses to Draft EIA 2020: (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</p><p>sources:https://cprindia.org</p><p><br /><br /></p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Please Withdraw Draft EIA 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. I understand that the new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient.<br /><br />However, I, as a citizen and a participant of Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Please Withdraw Draft EIA 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. I understand that the new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient.<br /><br />However, I, as a citizen and a participant of Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
@@ -34,78 +34,78 @@
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
@@ -115,78 +115,78 @@
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment</strong>, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
@@ -196,78 +196,78 @@
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p><strong>Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,</strong></p><p><strong>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</strong></p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
@@ -277,78 +277,78 @@
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
@@ -358,78 +358,78 @@
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
@@ -439,69 +439,69 @@
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
 'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and takes away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment .</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
-'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>'
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><div>I am aware that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 EIA. Currently, the notification is at the stage of public comments. <br /><br />I, as a citizen and an active participant of pro environmental activities, have concerns over it.</div>The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>In March 2020, the ministry had proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br /><div>1. The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the <strong>public consultation aspect.</strong> It provides for a <strong>reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance</strong>. <strong>It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification</strong>. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA.<br /><br />- The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. </div><div>- In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury.</div><div>- Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. <strong>The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. </strong>As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.<br />- Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. <strong>The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.</strong><br /><br />2. <strong>The project is allowed to start first and get an EIA clearance later.</strong> This will allow for unmonitored destruction of the environment and will pose a huge threat to the residing communities.</div><div>3. <strong>Loosened regulations: </strong>Rather than twice a year, the industries will have to now report compliance only once a year. Industries will be allowed to prepare reports themselves. There are high chances for them taking any and all measures in the name of development that will destroy the already disrupted environment. </div><div>4. <strong>Clearance exemption: </strong>If the clearance exemption clause is still provided, communities that will be affected by coal mining, petrochemical plants, irrigation or waterway projects will no longer be able to report industrial violations. In turn, again destroying the environment, forests and wildlife. </div><div>5. <strong>Fines in place of criminal implications: </strong>Small fines in place of criminal implications will give a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction of the environment and its resources by just paying a small fine. </div><div>6. <strong>No public participation for dams, mining and highway expansion: </strong>Such projects no doubt are essential for development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there will not be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities. If forests and wildlife are being affected by them, there will be no grievance redressal.</div><div>In conclusion, all these new norms give free and easy access to industries to damage our already affected environment, threatened forests and wildlife and take away the rights of the vulnerable communities, forests or wildlife affected by them. In the wake of this pandemic, we should be more thoughtful and considerate about our environment.</div>Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new draft notification has some serious problems, one of which is the extension of the time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. <br /><br />The earlier notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six months, showing that they are carrying out their activities as per the terms on which permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to submit a report only once every year. During this period, certain irreversible environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed because of the extended reporting time. For example, if a mining project is being carried out at some place which can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can then be stopped through timely reporting.<br /><br />However, providing a longer period for filing reports can lead to disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned authority will not have the opportunity to question the promoters for not following the terms of clearance. The only remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that would not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br /><div><br /><strong>Suggestions:</strong></div><div>- Rather than compromising on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</div><div>- Either extend the public hearing time for EIA2020 or please scrap the current norms that are very detrimental for the environment as well as communities and their livelihoods.</div><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- Roll back on this increase in the period for filing compliance reports and decrease the period further to 4 months thus requiring the submission of 3 compliance reports every year.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>A Concerned Citizen</p>',
+'mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=Withdraw EIA Draft 2020&body=<h1>To Whom It May Concern</h1><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>I know that in March 2020, the ministry proposed a draft notification to replace the 2006 document. The notification is at the stage of public comments. The new notification is being supposedly being brought in order to make the process more transparent and expedient by the implementation of an online system, further delegation, rationalisation and standardisation of the process.<br /><br /><br />The new notification includes certain provisions which could end up diluting the EIA process, especially the public consultation aspect. It provides for a reduction of time period from 30 days to 20 days for the public to submit their responses during a public hearing for any application seeking environmental clearance. It also requires that the public hearing process be completed in 40 days compared to 45 days under the 2006 notification. The main reason stated for reducing the time is that it would become easy for new investments to complete the formality of EIA. <br /><br />The danger is that if adequate time is not given for the preparation of views, comments and suggestions to those who would be affected by the project, then such public hearings would not be meaningful. In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs a part of participatory justice in which the voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a jan sunwai, where the community is the jury. <br /><br />Unless a public hearing is meaningful, the whole EIA process would lack transparency and credibility. The reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself. As the Supreme Court has said in several judgements over the years, the time for making any representation should be adequate and if it is not, then it would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. <br /><br />Even though the notification provides for the dissemination of information relating to public hearings through newspapers (and where dissemination through newspapers is not possible then by beating of drums or through radio or TV), the problem still remains. The issue of concern here is not the notice for a public hearing but the access to information on which the affected people need to comment.<br /><br />Suggestion-- rather than compromise on the time needed for gathering public opinion, the government should focus on bringing down the average delay of 238 days in granting environmental clearance. In Kerala, the administration took 1,049 days to clear the construction of the IT park project of M/s T Tech Park Ltd, instead of 105 days.</p><p>The Earth Is What We Have In Common</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Concerned Earthling and Citizen of the Republic of India</p>'
 
 
 ];
@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@
 	 <a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&subject=কোভিদ-১৯ মহামারীর পরিস্থিতির পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে EIA খসড়াটি [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] বিজ্ঞপ্তি  প্রত্যাহার এবং জনমত প্রকাশের প্রক্রিয়া বিলম্বিত করার আবেদন।&body=<p>প্রতি:</p><p>সচিব</p><p>পরিবেশ, বন ও জলবায়ু পরিবর্তন মন্ত্রক</p><p>ইন্দিরা পরীবরণ ভবন,</p><p>জোড়বাগ, নয়াদিল্লি</p><p><br /><br /></p><p>বিষয়: কোভিদ-১৯ মহামারীর পরিস্থিতির পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে EIA খসড়াটি [F.N.2-50/2018/IA.III] বিজ্ঞপ্তি প্রত্যাহার এবং জনমত প্রকাশের প্রক্রিয়া বিলম্বিত করার আবেদন।</p><p>মাননীয় শ্রীযুক্ত মিশ্র মহোদয়,</p><p>বিনীত নিবেদন এই যে ইআইএ নোটিফিকেশন, ২০২০ যা প্রজ্ঞাপন জারির ষাট দিনের মধ্যে জনমতের মন্তব্য চেয়ে 12.3.2020 এ পরিবেশ মন্ত্রকের ওয়েবসাইটে আপলোড করা হয়েছে। আমরা গভীরভাবে আশঙ্কিত যে এই জাতীয় খসড়া বিজ্ঞপ্তিটি একটি জাতীয় স্বাস্থ্য সঙ্কটের মধ্যে জারি করা হয়েছে। আপনি অবগত যে, দেশের বেশিরভাগ অংশটি লকডাউনের আওতায় রয়েছে এবং পাবলিক প্লেসে চলাচলে কঠোর বিধিনিষেধ রয়েছে। বেশিরভাগ অফিস বন্ধ রয়েছে এবং কর্মীরা বাড়ি থেকে কাজ করছেন। এই বিধিনিষেধগুলি অনির্দিষ্টকালের জন্য হতে পারে এবং কখন জন-জীবন স্বাভাবিক হবে তা সুনির্দিষ্ট ভাবে বলা সম্ভব নয়।</p><p>আমাদের দেশে প্রকৃতির সংরক্ষন ,অর্থনীতি এবং সাধারণ মানুষের জীবন-যাপনর জন্য অত্যাবশ্যক। তাই ইআইএ খসড়া ২০২০ সংশোধনীগুলি পাশ হওয়ার আগে জনমত খুবই প্রয়োজনীয়। করোনা মহামারীর দীর্ঘমেয়াদী ও সুদূর প্রসারী জনস্বাস্থ্য, সামাজিক এবং অর্থনৈতিক প্রভাবগুলি এখনও নির্ধারণ করা যায়নি। ইআইএ বিজ্ঞপ্তি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ নিয়ন্ত্রণ যার মাধ্যমে শিল্প ও পরিকাঠামোগত প্রকল্পগুলির জমি ব্যবহারের পরিবর্তন, জল নিষ্কাশন, বনভূমি নির্মূল করা, দূষণ, বর্জ্য এবং বর্জ্য পরিচালনার প্রভাবগুলি অধ্যয়ন ও ব্যবহার করা, উচিত-উন্নয়নমূলক সিদ্ধান্ত গ্রহণ।এই আইনের যে কোনও পরিবর্তন মানুষের জীবনযাত্রা, কাজের পরিস্থিতি এবং পরিবেশের উপর সরাসরি প্রভাব রয়েছে ।</p><p>সুতরাং, এটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ যে সরকার ইআইএ বিজ্ঞপ্তির রুপরেখা এবং প্রয়োগের দ্বারা প্রভাবিত বা সম্ভবত ক্ষতিগ্রস্থদের জন্য উপযুক্ত এবং পর্যাপ্ত সুযোগ সরবরাহ করুক। বর্তমান স্বাস্থ্য সঙ্কটে সীমাবদ্ধ জনসাধারণের চলাচল, সামাজিক দূরত্ব এবং দৈনন্দিন জীবনের ক্রিয়াকলাপের প্রতিকূলতার কারণে প্রস্তাবিত সংশোধনীগুলির প্রভাব বোঝার এবং আলোচনার সুযোগ খুবই সীমিত এবং অপর্যাপ্ত। বর্তমানে সেই বিধি-নিষেধগুলি এবং প্রতিকূলতার কারণে সেই সম্প্রদায়গুলির কাছে ইআইএ বিজ্ঞপ্তির সম্পর্কে তথ্য সরবরাহ অসম্ভব হয়ে দাঁড়াচ্ছে, যারা এই প্রজ্ঞাপন জানার এবং প্রভাবিত করার সম্পূর্ণ অধিকার রাখে।</p><p>তাই আমরা পরিবেশ মন্ত্রকের কাছে আবেদন রাখছি:</p><p>অবিলম্বে, খসড়া ইআইএ বিজ্ঞপ্তি 2020 এর প্রস্তাবিত সংশোধনী প্রত্যাহার করার জন্য।</p><p>কোভিড -১৯ সম্পর্কিত স্বাস্থ্য পরিস্থিতি এবং দেশজুড়ে নাগরিক জীবন স্বাভাবিক হওয়া অব্দি ইআইএ খসড়াটি পুনর্বিবেচনার সুযোগ দেয়া হোক।</p><p>এই সংশোধনীগুলির প্রভাব সম্পর্কে বিস্তৃত তথ্য দেয়া এবং অবহিত জনমত আলোচনার সুযোগ নিশ্চিত করা হোক।আমাদের দেশের সব থেকে মূল্যবান সম্পদ-প্রকৃতির সংরক্ষণ করা আমাদের জীবন-যাপন এবং অর্থনীতির জন্য অত্যাবশ্যক।</p><p>চূড়ান্ত সংশোধনী জারির আগে প্রাপ্ত মন্তব্যের ধরণ এবং এই মন্তব্যগুলির গ্রহণযোগ্যতা ও প্রত্যাখানের কারণগুলির বিষয়ে সম্পূর্ণ তথ্য প্রকাশ করা হোক।</p><p>আমরা আশা করি যে পরিবেশ মন্ত্রক রিও ঘোষণাপত্রের নীতিমালা 10 এবং প্রাকৃতিক ন্যায়বিচারের নীতিমালার প্রতিশ্রুতিবদ্ধ জনগণের অংশগ্রহণের প্রতি তার বাধ্যবাধকতাগুলি বজায় রাখবে, এবং এই বিষয়ে একটি সুচিন্তিত মতামত গ্রহণ করার আবেদন গ্রহণ করবে।</p><p>বিনীত,</p><p>এক উদ্বিগ্ন নাগরিক এবং দেশের হিতাকাঙ্খী।</p><p>Copy to:</p><p>Geeta Menon, Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)</p><p>Official email ID for responses to Draft EIA 2020: (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</p>' target="_blank">EIA কে বাঁচাও</a>
 	<a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=EIA বিজ্ঞাপনৰ নিৰ্দেশাৱলী উভতাই লোৱা আৰু কোবিদ-১৯ বিষয়ত ৰাজহুৱা মতামতৰ জাননী পৃথক কৰা৷&body=<p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change<br /><br />Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p> <br />বিষয় - EIA বিজ্ঞাপনৰ নিৰ্দেশাৱলী উভতাই লোৱা আৰু কোবিদ-১৯ বিষয়ত ৰাজহুৱা মতামতৰ জাননী পৃথক কৰা৷</p><p>মাননীয় মিঃ মিশ্ৰা,</p><p>ভাৰতৰ পৰিৱেশ মন্ত্রালয়ে প্রকাশ কৰা বিজ্ঞাপন বা জাননী প্রকাশ হোৱাৰ পৰা ৬০ দিনৰ ভিতৰত ৰাজহুৱা মতামত বিচাৰি ১২ মাৰ্চ ২০২০ তাৰিখে দিয়া বিজ্ঞাপনৰ নিৰ্দেশনা সম্পৰ্কত আমি গভীৰ ভাৱে, ৰাষ্ট্ৰীয় স্বাস্থ্য সংকটৰ সময়ত প্রকাশ হোৱা বিজ্ঞাপনটোৰ বিষয়ে উদ্বিগ্ন হৈছো ৷</p><p>আপুনি জ্ঞাত যে বেচিভাগ দেশ বৰ্তমান তলাবন্ধ অৱস্থাত আছে আৰু মানুহৰ আহ-যাহ সম্পৰ্কত নিষেধাজ্ঞা জাৰি হৈ আছে ৷ বেচিভাগ কার্যালয় বন্ধ আছে আৰু কৰ্মচাৰী সকলে ঘৰৰ পৰা কার্যালয়ৰ কাম কৰিছে ৷ এই নিষেধাজ্ঞা অনির্দিষ্ট কালৰ বাবে হব পাৰে, আৰু এইটো স্পষ্ট নহয় কেতিয়া ৰাজহুৱা কাম-কাজ আৰু জীৱন পুনৰ আৰম্ভ হ ‘ব৷</p><p>এই গোলকীয় অৱস্হাত দীৰ্ঘদিনীয়া ৰাজহুৱা জনস্বাস্থ্য আৰু অৰ্থনৈতিক প্ৰভাৱ এতিয়ালৈকে ঠাৱৰ কৰিব পৰা নাযায়৷ EIA জাননী এটা অৱশ্যকীয় নিৰ্দেশনা যিটোৰ প্ৰভাৱ মাটিৰ ব্যৱহাৰ সলনি হোৱা,পানী-তোলা কাৰ্য, গছ কটা, পৰিৱেশ দুষিতকৰণ, শিল্প আৰু আন্তঃগাঠনিৰ আঁচনি আদিত পৰিব, আৰু বিকাশমূলক আঁচনিত ব্যৱহাৰ কৰা হব৷ এই আইনৰ যদি কিবা সলনি হয়, সেইটোৰ প্ৰত্যক্ষ প্ৰভাৱ মানুহৰ জীৱিকা আৰু কাৰ্য, আৰু পৰিৱেশ তত্ত্বত পৰিব ৷</p><p>সেইবাবে এইটো সংকটজনক যে এই EIA জাননিটোৱে যাৰ জীৱনত প্ৰভাৱ পেলাইছে আৰু পেলাব, তেওলোকক চৰকাৰে উপযুক্ত সুবিধা দিয়ক ৷ এই EIA জাননিৰ প্ৰস্তাৱিত সংশোধনখিনি বুজিবলৈ আৰু তাৰ প্ৰয়োগ সম্পৰ্কে আলোচনা কৰিবলৈ সুযোগখিনি বৰ্তমান কোবিদ- ১৯ ৰ স্বাস্থ্য অৱস্হা, সীমিত ৰাজহুৱা গতি-বিধি, আৰু সামাজিক দুৰত্বয়ে বাধাপ্ৰাপ্ত কৰিব ৷ এই কোবিদ-১৯ ৰ বিধি নিষেধবোৰৰ বাবে যি সম্প্ৰদায়ক EIA জাননিয়ে প্ৰত্যক্ষভাৱে প্ৰভাৱ পেলাব, তেওলোকক জৰুৰী ভাৱে খবৰ দিয়াটো প্ৰায়ে অসম্ভৱ হব৷</p><p>আমি সেইবাবে পৰিবেশ মন্ত্রালয়ক অনুৰোধ কৰিছো যে -</p><p>তাৎক্ষনিত ভাৱে EIA জাননি ২০২০ প্ৰস্তাৱিত সংশোধনখিনি উঠাই লোৱা৷</p><p>কোবিদ-১৯ ৰ পৰিস্হিতি স্ৱাভাবিক হোৱাৰ পিছত বিলখল পুনৰ জাৰি কৰিবলৈ অনুমোদন দিব লাগে৷</p><p>এই সংশোধনখিনিৰ যিটো প্ৰযোজ্য হব সেইখিনিৰ বাবে বিস্তৃত ভাৱে ৰাজহুৱা আলোচনা কৰাটো চৰকাৰে নিশ্চিত কৰিব লাগিব ৷</p><p>চুড়ান্ত সংশোধনী জাননী জাৰী কৰাৰ আগতে এই সংশোধন খিনি গ্ৰহণ বা পৰিত্যাগ কৰা কাৰনসমূহ জনোৱাটো উচিত৷</p><p>EIA জাননি ২০২০ ৰ প্ৰস্তাৱিত সংশোধনখিনিৰ বিষয়ে কোনো ব্যৱস্হা লোৱাৰ আগতে মন্ত্রালয়ে ৰাজহুৱা অংশীদাৰিত্ব বাধ্যবাধকতা আছে আৰু ৰি ‘অ ঘোষণাৰ মূলমন্ত্ৰ - ১০ আৰু  ‘Principles of Natural justice ‘ ৰ প্ৰতি যিটো মন্তব্য আছে সেইটো গ্ৰহণ কৰিব৷</p><p>আপোনাৰ বিশ্বাসী</p><p>এজন উদ্বিগ্ন নাগৰিক</p><p>Copy to:</p><p>Geeta Menon, Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)</p><p>Official email ID for responses to Draft EIA 2020: (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</p>' target="_blank">EIA ক বচাওক</a>    
         <a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&subject=EIA अधिसूचना २०२० चा मसुदा मागे घ्या [एफ. एन .२-५० / २०१८ / आयए.आयआय] आणि कोविड -२०१९ च्या साथीच्या प्रकाशात सार्वजनिक टिप्पण्यांची प्रक्रिया पुढे ढकलून द्या.&body=<p>C.K.Mishra</p><p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p><br /><br /><br /></p><p>विषयः EIA अधिसूचना २०२० चा मसुदा मागे घ्या [एफ. एन .२-५० / २०१८ / आयए.आयआय] आणि कोविड -२०१९ च्या साथीच्या प्रकाशात सार्वजनिक टिप्पण्यांची प्रक्रिया पुढे ढकलून द्या.</p><p>माननीय श्री मिश्रा,</p><p>हे EIAच्या अधिसूचना २०२० च्या मसुद्याच्या संदर्भात आहे जे पर्यावरण मंत्रालयाच्या संकेतस्थळावर १२.०३.२०२० रोजी अपलोड केले गेले असून अधिसूचना दिल्यानंतर साठ दिवसांच्या आत जनतेच्या मते जाणून घेतील. आम्हाला राष्ट्रीय आरोग्य संकटाच्या पार्श्वभूमीवर ही मसुदा अधिसूचना काढण्यात आल्याची तीव्र काळजी आहे. आपल्याला माहिती आहेच की, देशातील बहुतेक भाग लॉकडाऊन अंतर्गत आहे आणि सार्वजनिक ठिकाणी हालचालींवर कठोर निर्बंध आहेत. बहुतेक कार्यालये बंद आहेत आणि कर्मचारी घरून काम करत आहेत. हे निर्बंध अनिश्चित असू शकतात आणि सार्वजनिक जीवन आणि कार्य कधी सुरू होऊ शकते हे स्पष्ट नाही.</p><p>या जागतिक साथीच्या दीर्घकालीन सार्वजनिक आरोग्याचा, सामाजिक आणि आर्थिक परिणामांचा अद्याप पत्ता लागलेला नाही. EIA अधिसूचना हे एक महत्त्वपूर्ण नियम आहे ज्याद्वारे औद्योगिक आणि पायाभूत प्रकल्पांच्या भूमीचा वापर बदल, पाणी उपसा, वृक्षतोड, प्रदूषण, कचरा आणि सांडपाणी व्यवस्थापनावरील परिणामांचा अभ्यास करुन विकासात्मक निर्णय घेताना उपयोग केला जाईल. या कायद्यातील कोणत्याही बदलाचा थेट परिणाम लोकांच्या राहण्याची आणि काम करण्याच्या परिस्थितीवर आणि पर्यावरणावर होतो.</p><p>म्हणूनच, हे आवश्यक आहे की EIAच्या अधिसूचनेची आखणी आणि अंमलबजावणीमुळे प्रभावित झालेल्या लोकांसाठी योग्य आणि पुरेशी संधी सरकार पुरविते. प्रतिबंधित सार्वजनिक हालचाली, सामाजिक अंतर आणि दैनंदिन जीवनातील आव्हानांसह सध्याच्या आरोग्य आपत्कालीन परिस्थितीमुळे प्रस्तावित केलेल्या दुरुस्तीचे परिणाम समजून घेण्याची आणि त्यांच्यावरील चर्चा करण्याच्या संधींवर गंभीरपणे अडथळा आणू शकतात. या निर्बंधांमुळे ज्या समुदायांना अधिसूचना जाणून घेणे आणि त्याचा प्रभाव असणे आवश्यक आहे अशा लोकांकडे सूचनेविषयी माहिती प्रसारित करणे देखील अशक्य होते.</p><p>म्हणून आम्ही पर्यावरण मंत्रालयाला विनंती करतोः</p><p>तत्काळ, मसुदा EIA अधिसूचना २०२० मधील प्रस्तावित केलेल्या दुरुस्ती मागे घ्या.</p><p><br /><br /></p><p>कोविड -१ आरोग्य आणि नागरी जीवनाशी संबंधित आरोग्यविषयक परिस्थिती देशभर सामान्य झाल्यावरच आराखड्यास पुन्हा विचारात घ्या.</p><p>या दुरुस्तीच्या अंमलबजावणीवर व्यापक चर्चा आणि माहिती सार्वजनिक चर्चा झाल्याचे सुनिश्चित करा.</p><p>अंतिम दुरुस्ती जारी होण्यापूर्वी प्राप्त झालेल्या टिप्पण्यांचे स्वरूप आणि या टिप्पण्या स्वीकारण्यास व नाकारण्याचे कारण यांचे संपूर्ण खुलासे.</p><p>आम्ही आशा करतो की पर्यावरण मंत्रालय EIAच्या अधिसूचना, २०२० च्या प्रस्तावित सुधारणांबाबत विचारात घेत असताना रिओ घोषणेच्या सिद्धांत १० आणि नैसर्गिक न्यायाच्या तत्त्वांशी संबंधित असलेल्या माहितीनुसार सार्वजनिक सहभागाविषयी आपली जबाबदारी पाळेल.</p><p>प्रामाणिकपणे</p><p>एक संबंधित नागरिक</p><p>यावर कॉपी करा:</p><p>गीता मेनन, जेटी सेसी, एमओईएफएफ (menong@cag.gov.in)</p><p>मसुदा EIA २०२० च्या प्रतिसादासाठी अधिकृत ईमेल आयडीः (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</p>' target="_blank">EIA जतन करा</a>
-        <a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&subject=കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം, 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] പിന്‍വലിക്കുകയും കോവിഡ് -2019 പകർച്ചവ്യാധിയുടെ വെളിച്ചത്തില്‍ പൊതു അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ പ്രക്രിയ മാറ്റിവെക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുക&body=<p>C.K.Mishra</p><p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi<br /><br /><br /><br /></p><p>വിഷയം: കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം, 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] പിൻവലിക്കുകയും കോവിഡ് -2019 പകർച്ചവ്യാധിയുടെ വെളിച്ചത്തിൽ പൊതു അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ പ്രക്രിയ മാറ്റിവെക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുക.</p><p>ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട ശ്രീ മിശ്ര,</p><p>വിജ്ഞാപനം പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ച് അറുപത് ദിവസത്തിനുള്ളില് പൊതു അഭിപ്രായങ്ങൾ തേടി പരിസ്ഥിതി മന്ത്രാലയത്തിന്റെ വെബ്സൈറ്റിൽ 12.3.2020 ന് അപ്‌ലോഡ് ചെയ്ത 2020 ലെ കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനത്തെ പരാമർശിച്ചാണിത്. ദേശീയ ആരോഗ്യ പ്രതിസന്ധിക്കിടയിലാണ് ഈ കരട് വിജ്ഞാപനം പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചതെന്ന് ഞങ്ങൾക്ക് ആശങ്കയുണ്ട്. നിങ്ങള്ക്കറിയാവുന്നതുപോലെ, രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ ഭൂരിഭാഗവും അടഞ്ഞുകിടക്കുകയാണ്, പൊതു സ്ഥലങ്ങളിൽ സഞ്ചരിക്കുന്നതിന് കടുത്ത നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങളുണ്ട്. മിക്ക ഓഫീസുകളും അടച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു, ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥർ വീട്ടിൽ നിന്നാണ് ജോലി ചെയ്യുന്നത്. ഈ നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങൾ അനിശ്ചിതമായിരിക്കാം, പൊതുജീവിതവും ജോലിയും എപ്പോൾ പുനരാരംഭിക്കാനവുമെന്ന് വ്യക്തമല്ല.</p><p>ഈ ആഗോള പകർച്ചവ്യാധിയുടെ പൊതുജനാരോഗ്യപരവും സാമൂഹികപരവും സാമ്പത്തികവുമായ ദീർഘകാല പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങൾ ഇനിയും കണ്ടെത്താനായിട്ടില്ല. വ്യാവസായിക, അടിസ്ഥാന സൗകര്യ വികസന പദ്ധതികൾക്കായി ഭൂവിനിയോഗ മാറ്റം, വെള്ളം വേർതിരിച്ചെടുക്കൽ, വൃക്ഷം വെട്ടിമാറ്റുക, മലിനീകരണം, മാലിന്യ സംസ്കരണം എന്നിവയുടെ പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങൾ പഠിക്കുകയും വികസന തീരുമാനമെടുക്കുന്നതിന് ഉപയോഗിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്ന ഒരു പ്രധാന നിയന്ത്രണമാണ് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം. ഈ നിയമത്തിലെ ഏത് മാറ്റവും ആളുകളുടെ ജീവിത സാഹചര്യങ്ങളെയും പരിസ്ഥിതിത്തെയും നേരിട്ട് ബാധിക്കുന്നു.</p><p>അതിനാല്, EIA വിജ്ഞാപനത്തിന്റെ രൂപകല്പ്പനയും നടപ്പാക്കലും ബാധിച്ച അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ബാധിക്കപ്പെടാൻ സാധ്യതയുള്ളവർക്ക് സര്ക്കാർ ഉചിതമായതും മതിയായതുമായ അവസരം നല്കുന്നത് നിര്ണായകമാണ്. നിയന്ത്രിത ഗതാഗതം, സാമൂഹിക അകലം പാലിക്കൽ, ദൈനംദിന ജീവിത പ്രവര്ത്തനങ്ങളോടുള്ള വെല്ലുവിളികൾ എന്നിവയുൾപ്പെടെയുള്ള ആരോഗ്യ അടിയന്തിരാവസ്ഥ കാരണം നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട ഭേദഗതികളുടെ പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങൾ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതിനും ചർച്ച ചെയ്യുന്നതിനുമുള്ള അവസരങ്ങൾ കർശനമായി തടസ്സപ്പെട്ടേക്കാം. വിജ്ഞാപനത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള വിവരങ്ങൾ അറിയാനും സ്വാധീനിക്കാനും അർഹതയുള്ള കമ്മ്യൂണിറ്റികൾക്ക് അറിയിപ്പിനെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള വിവരങ്ങൾ പ്രചരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതും ഈ നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങൾ അസാധ്യമാക്കുന്നു.</p><p>അതിനാൽ ഞങ്ങൾ പരിസ്ഥിതി മന്ത്രാലയത്തോട് അഭ്യർത്ഥിക്കുന്നു:</p><p>1) കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം 2020 ന്റെ നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട ഭേദഗതികൾ ഉടൻ പിൻവലിക്കുക.<br />2) കോവിഡ് -19, നാഗരിക ജീവിതം എന്നിവ രാജ്യത്തുടനീളം സാധാരണ നിലയിലായതിനു ശേഷം മാത്രം കരട് വീണ്ടും വിതരണം ചെയ്യുന്നത് പരിഗണിക്കുക.<br />3) ഈ ഭേദഗതികളുടെ പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ച് വ്യാപകമായ പ്രചാരണവും അറിവുള്ളവരുടെ പൊതു ചർച്ചകളും ഉണ്ടെന്ന് ഉറപ്പാക്കുക.<br />4) അന്തിമ ഭേദഗതികൾ പുറപ്പെടുവിക്കുന്നതിനു മുമ്പ് ലഭിച്ച അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ സ്വഭാവത്തെക്കുറിച്ചും ഈ അഭിപ്രായങ്ങൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുന്നതിനും നിരസിക്കുന്നതിനുമുള്ള കാരണങ്ങൾ പൂർണ്ണമായി വെളിപ്പെടുത്തുക.</p><p>ഖനന ലൈസൻസ് നൽകേണ്ട സ്ഥലത്ത് പ്രാദേശിക അധികാരികളുടെ പ്രതിനിധികൾ, പ്രദേശത്ത് താമസിക്കുന്നവർ എന്നിവരുമായി ശരിയായ പൊതു ഹിയറിംഗ് നടത്തേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. പൊതു ഹിയറിംഗ് പ്രക്രിയയ്ക്കുള്ള ഘട്ടം ഘട്ടമായുള്ള നടപടിക്രമങ്ങൾ സമർത്ത് ട്രസ്റ്റ് കേസിൽ ദില്ലി ഹൈക്കോടതി വിശദീകരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. സുരക്ഷാ കാരണങ്ങൾ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടി EIA, 2020 ഉപയോഗിച്ച് MoEFCC നിരവധി മേഖലകളെ പൊതു ഹിയറിംഗ് പ്രക്രിയയിൽ നിന്ന് ഒഴിവാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഇത് പരിസ്ഥിതി മാനദണ്ഡങ്ങൾക്ക് വിരുദ്ധമാണ്. ആയതിനാല് 2020 ലെ EIA വിജ്ഞാപനത്തിലെ നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട ഭേദഗതികൾ പരിഗണിക്കുമ്പോൾ പരിസ്ഥിതി മന്ത്രാലയം പ്രകൃതി നീതിയുടെ തത്വങ്ങളുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട പൊതു പങ്കാളിത്തം ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തും എന്ന് ഞങ്ങള് പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.</p><p>ആത്മാർത്ഥതയോടെ,<br />ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ഒരു പൗരൻ</p><p>Copy to:</p><p>Geeta Menon, Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)<br />Official email ID for responses to Draft EIA 2020: (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</p>' target="_blank">EIA സംരക്ഷിക്കുക</a>
+        <a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&cc=menong@cag.gov.in&subject=കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം, 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] പിന്‍വലിക്കുകയും കോവിഡ് -2019 പകർച്ചവ്യാധിയുടെ വെളിച്ചത്തില്‍ പൊതു അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ പ്രക്രിയ മാറ്റിവെക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുക&body=<p>C.K.Mishra</p><p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi<br /><br /><br /><br /></p><p>വിഷയം: കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം, 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] പിൻവലിക്കുകയും കോവിഡ് -2019 പകർച്ചവ്യാധിയുടെ വെളിച്ചത്തിൽ പൊതു അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ പ്രക്രിയ മാറ്റിവെക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുക.</p><p>ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട ശ്രീ മിശ്ര,</p><p>വിജ്ഞാപനം പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ച് അറുപത് ദിവസത്തിനുള്ളില് പൊതു അഭിപ്രായങ്ങൾ തേടി പരിസ്ഥിതി മന്ത്രാലയത്തിന്റെ വെബ്സൈറ്റിൽ 12.3.2020 ന് അപ്‌ലോഡ് ചെയ്ത 2020 ലെ കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനത്തെ പരാമർശിച്ചാണിത്. ദേശീയ ആരോഗ്യ പ്രതിസന്ധിക്കിടയിലാണ് ഈ കരട് വിജ്ഞാപനം പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചതെന്ന് ഞങ്ങൾക്ക് ആശങ്കയുണ്ട്. നിങ്ങള്ക്കറിയാവുന്നതുപോലെ, രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ ഭൂരിഭാഗവും അടഞ്ഞുകിടക്കുകയാണ്, പൊതു സ്ഥലങ്ങളിൽ സഞ്ചരിക്കുന്നതിന് കടുത്ത നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങളുണ്ട്. മിക്ക ഓഫീസുകളും അടച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു, ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥർ വീട്ടിൽ നിന്നാണ് ജോലി ചെയ്യുന്നത്. ഈ നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങൾ അനിശ്ചിതമായിരിക്കാം, പൊതുജീവിതവും ജോലിയും എപ്പോൾ പുനരാരംഭിക്കാനവുമെന്ന് വ്യക്തമല്ല.</p><p>ഈ ആഗോള പകർച്ചവ്യാധിയുടെ പൊതുജനാരോഗ്യപരവും സാമൂഹികപരവും സാമ്പത്തികവുമായ ദീർഘകാല പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങൾ ഇനിയും കണ്ടെത്താനായിട്ടില്ല. വ്യാവസായിക, അടിസ്ഥാന സൗകര്യ വികസന പദ്ധതികൾക്കായി ഭൂവിനിയോഗ മാറ്റം, വെള്ളം വേർതിരിച്ചെടുക്കൽ, വൃക്ഷം വെട്ടിമാറ്റുക, മലിനീകരണം, മാലിന്യ സംസ്കരണം എന്നിവയുടെ പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങൾ പഠിക്കുകയും വികസന തീരുമാനമെടുക്കുന്നതിന് ഉപയോഗിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്ന ഒരു പ്രധാന നിയന്ത്രണമാണ് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം. ഈ നിയമത്തിലെ ഏത് മാറ്റവും ആളുകളുടെ ജീവിത സാഹചര്യങ്ങളെയും പരിസ്ഥിതിത്തെയും നേരിട്ട് ബാധിക്കുന്നു.</p><p>അതിനാല്, EIA വിജ്ഞാപനത്തിന്റെ രൂപകല്പ്പനയും നടപ്പാക്കലും ബാധിച്ച അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ബാധിക്കപ്പെടാൻ സാധ്യതയുള്ളവർക്ക് സര്ക്കാർ ഉചിതമായതും മതിയായതുമായ അവസരം നല്കുന്നത് നിര്ണായകമാണ്. നിയന്ത്രിത ഗതാഗതം, സാമൂഹിക അകലം പാലിക്കൽ, ദൈനംദിന ജീവിത പ്രവര്ത്തനങ്ങളോടുള്ള വെല്ലുവിളികൾ എന്നിവയുൾപ്പെടെയുള്ള ആരോഗ്യ അടിയന്തിരാവസ്ഥ കാരണം നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട ഭേദഗതികളുടെ പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങൾ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതിനും ചർച്ച ചെയ്യുന്നതിനുമുള്ള അവസരങ്ങൾ കർശനമായി തടസ്സപ്പെട്ടേക്കാം. വിജ്ഞാപനത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള വിവരങ്ങൾ അറിയാനും സ്വാധീനിക്കാനും അർഹതയുള്ള കമ്മ്യൂണിറ്റികൾക്ക് അറിയിപ്പിനെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള വിവരങ്ങൾ പ്രചരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതും ഈ നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങൾ അസാധ്യമാക്കുന്നു.</p><p>അതിനാൽ ഞങ്ങൾ പരിസ്ഥിതി മന്ത്രാലയത്തോട് അഭ്യർത്ഥിക്കുന്നു:</p><p>1) കരട് EIA വിജ്ഞാപനം 2020 ന്റെ നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട ഭേദഗതികൾ ഉടൻ പിൻവലിക്കുക.<br />2) കോവിഡ് -19, നാഗരിക ജീവിതം എന്നിവ രാജ്യത്തുടനീളം സാധാരണ നിലയിലായതിനു ശേഷം മാത്രം കരട് വീണ്ടും വിതരണം ചെയ്യുന്നത് പരിഗണിക്കുക.<br />3) ഈ ഭേദഗതികളുടെ പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ച് വ്യാപകമായ പ്രചാരണവും അറിവുള്ളവരുടെ പൊതു ചർച്ചകളും ഉണ്ടെന്ന് ഉറപ്പാക്കുക.<br />4) അന്തിമ ഭേദഗതികൾ പുറപ്പെടുവിക്കുന്നതിനു മുമ്പ് ലഭിച്ച അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ സ്വഭാവത്തെക്കുറിച്ചും ഈ അഭിപ്രായങ്ങൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുന്നതിനും നിരസിക്കുന്നതിനുമുള്ള കാരണങ്ങൾ പൂർണ്ണമായി വെളിപ്പെടുത്തുക.</p><p>ഖനന ലൈസൻസ് നൽകേണ്ട സ്ഥലത്ത് പ്രാദേശിക അധികാരികളുടെ പ്രതിനിധികൾ, പ്രദേശത്ത് താമസിക്കുന്നവർ എന്നിവരുമായി ശരിയായ പൊതു ഹിയറിംഗ് നടത്തേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. പൊതു ഹിയറിംഗ് പ്രക്രിയയ്ക്കുള്ള ഘട്ടം ഘട്ടമായുള്ള നടപടിക്രമങ്ങൾ സമർത്ത് ട്രസ്റ്റ് കേസിൽ ദില്ലി ഹൈക്കോടതി വിശദീകരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. സുരക്ഷാ കാരണങ്ങൾ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടി EIA, 2020 ഉപയോഗിച്ച് MoEFCC നിരവധി മേഖലകളെ പൊതു ഹിയറിംഗ് പ്രക്രിയയിൽ നിന്ന് ഒഴിവാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഇത് പരിസ്ഥിതി മാനദണ്ഡങ്ങൾക്ക് വിരുദ്ധമാണ്. ആയതിനാല് 2020 ലെ EIA വിജ്ഞാപനത്തിലെ നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട ഭേദഗതികൾ പരിഗണിക്കുമ്പോൾ പരിസ്ഥിതി മന്ത്രാലയം പ്രകൃതി നീതിയുടെ തത്വങ്ങളുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട പൊതു പങ്കാളിത്തം ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തും എന്ന് ഞങ്ങള് പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.</p><p>ആത്മാർത്ഥതയോടെ,<br />ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ഒരു പൗരൻ</p><p>Copy to:</p><p>Geeta Menon, Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)<br />Official email ID for responses to Draft EIA 2020: (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</p>' target="_blank">EIA സംരക്ഷിക്കുക</a>
 	<a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&subject=வரைவு EIA அறிவிப்பைத் திரும்பப் பெறுதல், 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] மற்றும் கோவிட் -2018 தொற்றுநோயின் வெளிச்சத்தில் பொதுமக்கள் கருத்து தெரிவிக்கும் செயல்முறையை ஒத்திவைக்கவும்.&body=<p>C.K.Mishra</p><p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p><br /><br /></p><p>தலைப்பு: வரைவு EIA அறிவிப்பைத் திரும்பப் பெறுதல், 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] மற்றும் கோவிட் -2018 தொற்றுநோயின் வெளிச்சத்தில் பொதுமக்கள் கருத்து தெரிவிக்கும் செயல்முறையை ஒத்திவைக்கவும்.</p><p>க .ரவ</p><p>இது 2020 வரைவு EIA அறிவிப்பைக் குறிக்கும், இது 12.3.2020 அன்று சுற்றுச்சூழல் அமைசகத்தின் இணையதளத்தில் பதிவேற்றம் செய்யப்பட்ட அறுபது நாட்களுக்குள் பொதுமக்கள் கருத்தைத் தேடியது. இந்த வரைவு அறிவிப்பு ஒரு தேசிய சுகாதார நெருக்கடியின் போது வெளியிடப்பட்டது என்று நாங்கள் கவலைப்படுகிறோம். உங்களுக்குத் தெரியும், நாட்டின் பெரும்பகுதி மூடப்பட்டுள்ளது மற்றும் பொது இடங்களில் பயணம் செய்வதற்கு கடுமையான கட்டுப்பாடுகள் உள்ளன. பெரும்பாலான அலுவலகங்கள் மூடப்பட்டுள்ளன, அதிகாரிகள் வீட்டிலிருந்து வேலை செய்கிறார்கள். இந்த கட்டுப்பாடுகள் நிச்சயமற்றதாக இருக்கலாம், பொது வாழ்க்கை மற்றும் வேலையை எப்போது தொடங்குவது என்பது தெளிவாகத் தெரியவில்லை.</p><p>இந்த உலகளாவிய தொற்றுநோயின் பொது சுகாதாரம், சமூக மற்றும் பொருளாதார விளைவுகளின் நீண்டகால விளைவுகள் இன்னும் கண்டறியப்படவில்லை. நில பயன்பாட்டு மாற்றம், நீர்மேலாண்மை பிரித்தெடுத்தல், மரம் வெட்டுதல், மாசுபாடு மற்றும் கழிவு மேலாண்மை ஆகியவற்றின் தாக்கங்களை ஆய்வு செய்வதற்கும் அபிவிருத்தி முடிவுகளை எடுப்பதற்கும் தொழில்துறை மற்றும் உள்கட்டமைப்பு திட்டங்களுக்கு பயன்படுத்தப்படும் ஒரு முக்கியமான கட்டுப்பாடு EIA அறிவிப்பு ஆகும். சட்டத்தின் எந்த மாற்றமும் மக்களின் வாழ்க்கை நிலைமைகளையும் சுற்றுச்சூழலையும் நேரடியாக பாதிக்கிறது.</p><p>எனவே, EIA அறிவிப்பின் வடிவமைப்பு செயல்பாட்டால் பாதிக்கப்பட்ட அல்லது பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்களுக்கு அரசாங்கம் ங்ய்ப்போதுவான வாய்மையை வழங்குவது மிகவும் முக்கியமானது. தடைசெய்யப்பட்ட போக்குவரத்து, சமூக தூரம் மற்றும் அன்றாட வாழ்க்கை நடவடிக்கைகளுக்கு சவால்கள் உள்ளிட்ட சுகாதார அவசரநிலைகள் காரணமாக முன்மொழியப்பட்ட திருத்தங்களின் தாக்கங்களை புரிந்துகொள்வதற்கும் விவாதிப்பதற்கும் வாய்ப்புகள் கடுமையாக தடைபடும். இந்த கட்டுபாடு தகவல்கள் செல்வாக்கு உள்ள சமூகங்களுக்கு பரப்புவதால் பயன் இல்லை.;</p><p>எனவே சுற்றுச்சூழல் அமைச்சகத்தை நாங்கள் கோருகிறோம்:</p><p>1) EIA அறிவிப்பு 2020 வரைவுக்கான உத்தேச திருத்தங்களை உடனடியாக ரத்து செய்யுங்கள்.</p><p>2) கோவிட் -19 மற்றும் குடிஉரிமை வாழ்க்கை நாடு முழுவதும் பொதுவானதாக மாறிய பின்னரே வரைவை மீண்டும் வெளியிடுவதைக் கவனியுங்கள்.</p><p>3) இந்த திருத்தங்களின் தாக்கங்கள் குறித்து பரவலான விளம்பரம் மற்றும் பொது விவாதம் இருப்பதை உறுதிசெய்க.</p><p>4) இறுதித் திருத்தம் வழங்கப்படுவதற்கு முன்னர் பெறப்பட்ட கருத்துகளின் தன்மை மற்றும் இந்தக் கருத்துக்களை ஏற்றுக்கொள்வது அல்லது நிராகரிப்பதற்கான காரணங்கள் ஆகியவற்றை முழுமையாக வெளிப்படுத்துங்கள்.</p><p>சுரங்க உரிமம் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டிய இடத்தில், உள்ளூர் அதிகாரிகளின் பிரதிநிதிகள் மற்றும் அப்பகுதியில் வசிப்பவர்களுடன் முறையான பொது விசாரணை தேவை. சமுக அறக்கட்டளை வழக்கில் பொது விசாரணை நடவடிக்கைக்கான படிப்படியான நடைமுறைகளை டெல்லி உயர் நீதிமன்றம் விவரித்துள்ளது. EIA, 2020 உடன், பாதுகாப்பு காரணங்களுக்காக MoEFCC பல பகுதிகளை பொது விசாரணை செயல்முறையிலிருந்து விலக்கியுள்ளது. இது சுற்றுச்சூழல் விவாதத்திற்கு முரணானது. எனவே, 2020 இன் EIA அறிவிப்பில் முன்மொழியப்பட்ட திருத்தங்களை பரிசீலிக்கும்போது, சுற்றுச்சூழல் அமைச்சகம் இயற்கை பொதுமக்கள் பங்களிப்பை உறுதி செய்யும் என்று நம்புகிறோம்.</p><p>உண்மையுள்ள,</p><p>சம்பந்தப்பட்ட குடிமகன்</p><p>இதற்கு நகலெடுக்கவும்:</p><p>கீதா மேனன், Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)</p><p>வரைவு EIA 2020: (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in) அதிகாரப்பூர்வ மின்னஞ்சல் ஐடிக்கான பதில்களுக்கு</p><p><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>' target="_blank">EIA ஐ சேமிக்கவும்</a>
 	<a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&subject=EIA નોટિફિકેશન 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] નો મુસદ્દો પાછો લેવા અને COVID-2019 ના પ્રકાશમાં જાહેર ટિપ્પણીઓની પ્રક્રિયા મોકૂફ રાખવા બાબત.&body=<p>C.K.Mishra</p><p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p><br /><br /><br /></p><p>વિષય: EIA નોટિફિકેશન 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] નો મુસદ્દો પાછો લેવા અને COVID-2019 ના પ્રકાશમાં જાહેર ટિપ્પણીઓની પ્રક્રિયા મોકૂફ રાખવા બાબત.</p><p>માનનીય શ્રી મિશ્રાજી,</p><p>આ પત્ર ઇ.આઈ.એ નોટિફિકેશન 2020 ના મુસદ્દાના સંદર્ભમાં છે જે 12.03.2020 ના રોજ પર્યાવરણ મંત્રાલયની વેબસાઇટ પર અપલોડ કરવામાં આવી હતી અને પ્રકાશિત થયા પછીના 60 દિવસમાં લોકોના અભિપ્રાયો જાણવા માટે ખુલ્લી મુકાઇ હતી. અમને ચિંતા છે કે દેશવ્યાપી આરોગ્ય સંકટની વચ્ચે આ ડ્રાફ્ટ નોટિફિકેશન બહાર પાડવામાં આવ્યું છે. જેમ તમે જાણો છો કૅ, દેશનો મોટો ભાગ તાળાબંદી હેઠળ છે અને જાહેર સ્થળોએ અવર-જવર પર કડક પ્રતિબંધો છે. મોટાભાગની ઓફિસો બંધ છે અને કર્મચારીઓ ઘરેથી કામ કરી રહ્યા છે. આ પ્રતિબંધો હજી અનિશ્ચિત સમય સુધી હોઈ શકે છે અને જાહેર જીવન અને કર્યો ક્યારે પુનઃ શરૂ થઈ શકશે છે તે અસ્પષ્ટ છે.</p><p>આ વૈશ્વિક મહામારી ના લાંબા ગાળાના જાહેર આરોગ્ય, સામાજિક અને આર્થિક પરિણામોની હજુ સુધી ખાતરી થઈ નથી. ઇ.આઈ.એ નોટિફિકેશન એ એક મહત્વપૂર્ણ નિયમ છે જેના દ્વારા ઔદ્યોગિક અને ઇનફ્રાસ્ટ્રક્ચર પ્રોજેક્ટ્સમાં જમીનના ઉપયોગના પરિવર્તન, જળ નિષ્કર્ષણ, વૃક્ષોની કાપણી, પ્રદૂષણ, કચરો અને જળ વ્યવસ્થાપન પરના પ્રભાવનો અભ્યાસ કરીને વિકાસલક્ષી નિર્ણય લેવામાં આવે છે. આ કાયદામાં કોઈપણ ફેરફારની સીધી અસર લોકોના જીવન, કામ કરવાની પરિસ્થિતિ અને પર્યાવરણ પર પડે છે.</p><p>તેથી, તે જરૂરી છે કે સરકાર ઇ.આઇ.એ નોટિફિકેશન ના ડિઝાઇન અને અમલીકરણથી પ્રભાવિત લોકો માટે યોગ્ય અને પૂરતી તકો પ્રદાન કરે. વર્તમાન આરોગ્ય સંકટ ને લીધે સોશિયલ ડિસ્ટન્સિંગ, સીમિત જાહેર હલન-ચલન અને અન્ય પ્રતિબંધો ને કારણે આ સુધારાઓ ને સમજવાની અને તેના પર ચર્ચા કરવાની તકો પ્રભાવિત થઈ છે . આ પ્રતિબંધો જેના માટે આ સૂચના અને તેના પ્રભાવને જાણવાની જરૂર છે એવા પ્રભાવિત સમુદાયો સુધી નોટિફિકેશન વિશેની માહિતીનો પ્રસાર કરવો અશક્ય બનાવે છે.</p><p>તેથી અમારી પર્યાવરણ મંત્રાલયને વિનંતી છે કે</p><p>ઇ.આઇ.એ નોટિફિકેશન 2020 ના ડ્રાફ્ટમાં સૂચિત સુધારા તાત્કાલિક પાછા ખેચવામાં આવે .</p><p>જ્યારે કોવિડ -19 પછી આરોગ્ય અને નાગરિક જીવન-સંબંધિત પરિસ્થિતિઓ દેશભરમાં સામાન્ય બની જાય ત્યારે જ આ યોજના પર પુનર્વિચાર કરવા માં આવે .</p><p>ખાતરી કરવા માં આવે કૅ આ સુધારાના અમલીકરણ પર વ્યાપક ચર્ચા અને માહિતીસભર જાહેર ચર્ચાઑ થાય .</p><p>અંતિમ સુધારો જારી થયા પહેલા પ્રાપ્ત થયેલી ટિપ્પણીઓ વિશે સંપૂર્ણ જાહેરાત અને આ ટિપ્પણીઓને સ્વીકારવા અને નકારવાનાં કારણો જાહેર કરવામાં આવે.</p><p>સ્થાનિક સત્તાવાળાઓ, આ વિસ્તારમાં રહેતા લોકોના પ્રતિનિધિઓ સાથે માઇનિંગ લાઇસન્સ આપવું જોઈએ. સમર્થ ટ્રસ્ટના કેસમાં, દિલ્હી હાઈકોર્ટે જાહેર સુનાવણી પ્રક્રિયામાં પગલું દ્વારા પગલું સમજાવ્યું છે. ઇઆઇએ, 2020 ની સાથે, એમઓઇએફસીસીએ સુરક્ષા કારણોને ટાંકીને, ઘણા લોકોને જાહેર સુનાવણી પ્રક્રિયામાંથી મુક્તિ આપી છે. તે પર્યાવરણીય ધોરણો વિરુદ્ધ છે.</p><p>અમે આશા રાખીએ છીએ કે પર્યાવરણ મંત્રાલય તેની માહિતીસભર જાહેર ભાગીદારી કે જેવીરીતે રિયો ડિકલેરેશન ના principle 10 માં બાહેંધરી આપાઈ છે તે જવાબદારીનું નિર્વહન કરશે અને ઇ.આઈ.એ નોટિફિકેશન,2020 પરની વિચારણા સમયે કુદરતી ન્યાયના સિદ્ધાંત નું પાલન કરશે.</p><p><br /><br /></p><p>આપનો વિશ્વાસુ,</p><p>એક જવાબદાર નાગરિક</p><p>કૉપી:</p><p><br /><br /></p><ul><li>Geeta Menon, Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)</li></ul><ul><li>Official email ID for responses to Draft EIA 2020: (eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</li></ul><p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>' target="_blank">EIA બચાવો</a>
 	<a class="link" href='mailto:mefcc@gov.in,eia2020-moefcc@gov.in,connect@mygov.nic.in,secy-moef@nic.in?bcc=thereisnoearthb@gmail.com&subject=ముసాయిదా EIA నోటిఫికేషన్, 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] ను ఉపసంహరించుకోండి మరియు కోవి డ్ -2020 మహమ్మారి వెలుగు లో ప్రజల వ్యాఖ్యల ప్ర క్రియను వాయిదా వేస్తుంది&body=<p>C.K.Mishra</p><p>Secretary</p><p>Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change</p><p>Indira Paryavaran Bhawan</p><p>Jor Bagh, New Delhi</p><p><br /><br /><br /></p><p>అంశం: ముసాయిదా EIA నోటిఫికేషన్, 2020 [F.N.2-50 / 2018 / IA.III] ను ఉపసంహరించుకోండి మరియు కోవి డ్ -2020 మహమ్మారి వెలుగు లో ప్రజల వ్యాఖ్యల ప్ర క్రియను వాయిదా వేస్తుంది.</p><p>గౌరవ.</p><p>ఇది నోటిఫికేషన్ జారీ చేసిన అరవై రోజులలోపు 12.3.2020 న పర్యావరణ మంత్రిత్వ శాఖ వెబ్\u200cసైట్\u200cలో అప్\u200cలోడ్ చేసిన 2020 ముసాయిదా EIA నోటిఫికేషన్\u200cను సూచిస్తుంది. జాతీయ ఆరోగ్య సంక్షోభ సమయంలో ఈ ముసాయిదా నోటిఫికేషన్ జారీ చేయబడిందని మేము ఆందోళన చెందుతున్నాము. మీకు తెలిసినట్లుగా, దేశంలో చాలా భాగం మూసివేయబడింది మరియు బహిరంగ ప్రదేశాల్లో ప్రయాణించడానికి కఠినమైన ఆంక్షలు ఉన్నాయి. చాలా కార్యాలయాలు మూసివేయబడ్డాయి మరియు అధికారులు ఇంటి నుండి పనిచేస్తారు. ఈ పరిమితులు అనిశ్చితంగా ఉండవచ్చు మరియు ప్రజా జీవితం మరియు పని ఎప్పుడు ప్రారంభమవుతుందో అస్పష్టంగా ఉంది.</p><p>ఈ ప్రపంచ మహమ్మారి యొక్క దీర్ఘకాలిక ప్రజారోగ్యం, సామాజిక మరియు ఆర్థిక పరిణామాలు ఇంకా నిర్ధారించబడలేదు. EIA నోటిఫికేషన్ అనేది ఒక ముఖ్యమైన నియంత్రణ, ఇది పారిశ్రామిక మరియు మౌలిక సదుపాయాల ప్రాజెక్టులకు భూ వినియోగ మార్పు, నీటి వెలికితీత, చెట్ల నరికివేత, కాలుష్యం మరియు వ్యర్థ పదార్థాల నిర్వహణ యొక్క ప్రభావాలను అధ్యయనం చేయడానికి మరియు అభివృద్ధి నిర్ణయాలు తీసుకోవడానికి ఉపయోగించబడుతుంది. చట్టంలో ఏదైనా మార్పు ప్రజల జీవన పరిస్థితులను మరియు పర్యావరణాన్ని ప్రత్యక్షంగా ప్రభావితం చేస్తుంది.</p><p>అందువల్ల, EIA నోటిఫికేషన్ యొక్క రూపకల్పన మరియు అమలు ద్వారా ప్రభావితమైన లేదా ప్రభావితమైన వారికి ప్రభుత్వం తగిన మరియు తగిన అవకాశాన్ని కల్పించడం చాలా ముఖ్యం. పరిమితం చేయబడిన రవాణా, సామాజిక దూరం మరియు రోజువారీ జీవిత కార్యకలాపాలకు సవాళ్లతో సహా ఆరోగ్య అత్యవసర పరిస్థితుల కారణంగా ప్రతిపాదిత సవరణల యొక్క చిక్కులను అర్థం చేసుకోవడానికి మరియు చర్చించడానికి అవకాశాలు తీవ్రంగా దెబ్బతింటాయి. ఈ పరిమితులు నోటిఫికేషన్\u200cను ప్రభావితం చేయడానికి మరియు ప్రభావితం చేయడానికి అర్హత ఉన్న సంఘాలకు నోటిఫికేషన్ సమాచారాన్ని వ్యాప్తి చేయడం అసాధ్యం.</p><p>అందువల్ల మేము పర్యావరణ మంత్రిత్వ శాఖను అభ్యర్థిస్తున్నాము:</p><p>ముసాయిదా EIA నోటిఫికేషన్ 2020 కు ప్రతిపాదించిన సవరణలను వెంటనే ఉపసంహరించుకోండి.</p><p>కోవిడ్ -19 మరియు పౌర జీవితం దేశవ్యాప్తంగా సాధారణమైన తర్వాతే ముసాయిదాను తిరిగి పంపిణీ చేయడాన్ని పరిగణించండి.</p><p>విస్తృతమైన ప్రచారం ఉందని నిర్ధారించుకోండి మరియు ఈ సవరణల యొక్క చిక్కులపై బహిరంగ చర్చకు సమాచారం ఇవ్వండి.</p><p>తుది సవరణ జారీ చేయడానికి ముందు అందుకున్న వ్యాఖ్యల స్వభావం మరియు ఈ వ్యాఖ్యలను అంగీకరించడానికి మరియు తిరస్కరించడానికి గల కారణాల గురించి పూర్తి బహిర్గతం.</p><p>మైనింగ్ లైసెన్స్ జారీ చేయాల్సిన చోట, స్థానిక అధికారుల ప్రతినిధులు మరియు ఈ ప్రాంత నివాసితులతో సరైన బహిరంగ విచారణ అవసరం. సమర్త్ ట్రస్ట్ కేసులో High ిల్లీ హైకోర్టు పబ్లిక్ హియరింగ్ ప్రక్రియ కోసం దశల వారీ విధానాన్ని వివరించింది. భద్రతా కారణాల దృష్ట్యా MoEFCC అనేక ప్రాంతాలను EIA మరియు 2020 తో పబ్లిక్ హియరింగ్ ప్రక్రియ నుండి మినహాయించింది. ఇది పర్యావరణ ప్రమాణాలకు విరుద్ధం. అందువల్ల 2020 యొక్క EIA నోటిఫికేషన్\u200cకు ప్రతిపాదిత సవరణలను పరిగణనలోకి తీసుకున్నప్పుడు పర్యావరణ మంత్రిత్వ శాఖ సహజ న్యాయం యొక్క సూత్రాలలో ప్రజల భాగస్వామ్యాన్ని నిర్ధారిస్తుందని మేము ఆశిస్తున్నాము.</p><p>భవదీయులు</p><p>సంబంధిత పౌరుడు</p><p><br /><br /></p><p>Copy to:</p><ul><li>Geeta Menon, Jt Secy, MoEFF (menong@cag.gov.in)</li></ul><p><br />Official email ID for responses to Draft EIA 2020: (mailto:eia2020-moefcc@gov.in)</p>' target="_blank">EIA ని సేవ్ చేయండి</a>