Final Red Book

The ‘Red’ Book

Undocumented story of EIA

consultant organizations accreditation

By NABET

MAY 2014

NABET Secretariat

A

S

S

E S

S

R

S

O

EIA Consultant

Unaccredited EIA Consultants

Stay Order

CPCB

Empanelled Experts

QCI MOM

Review of Decision

NABET Executives

New Applicants

NABET Advisor

The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation by NABET

Preface

Today Indian economy is depending on the 'green laws' of the country and during the last 5

years it was evident in terms of GDP growth. However, the biggest challenges are ahead in

front of the nation is 'unemployment' and developmental projects are inevitable for the

country but not at the cost of ecology and environment.

Many industrialists and even the government felt that Indian green laws are monotonous,

time consuming and doesn't support for nations development. Plenty of developmental

projects create enormous jobs for the country and today these projects were kept dust ridden

at Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India racks.

Yet, another contributing factor for the same was induction of accreditation system of EIA

consultant organisation by NABET. MoEF had utterly failed in implementing the provisions

of EIA Notification, 2006 and in order to hide the discrepancies made by MoEF, NABET was

inducted to control over poor environmental consultants. MoEF didn't worry about to

improve its own mechanism of EAC and SEACs. However, MoEF through NABET targeted

consultants to bring the quality of EIA.

It was fun that NABET being existed in the country to develop the quality aspects in various

sectors is directly involving in collection of bribe and blatantly the scheme made by NABET

is 'illogical, unscientific and biased'. NABET sheltered retired officials of MoEF and Public

Sector Undertakings for assessments who are not even carry out single EIA studies in their

life time.

Various environmental experts, scientific community and including MoEF officials didn't

ready to accept the scheme and sent various comments to MoEF to rule out draft gazette

notification published by MoEF to made the scheme mandatory in the month of July 2013.

Therefore, it is urgency and need of the hour and responsibility of the new government to

wholesomely reject the irrational scheme enacted by UPA government and this document

entitled 'The Red Book - Undocumented story of EIA Consultant organizations accreditation

by NABET' is an 'eye opener' to MOEF and new government.

Indian Environmental Consultant organisations are expecting ' achhe din aane waale hain'.

Date: 29.05.2014


Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Statistics of Accreditation 6

2.1 State wise list of organizations applied for accreditation and no. of

organizations accredited by NABET

6

2.2 Status of Accreditation in India 7

2.3 Status of Accreditation in Northern states 7

2.4 Status of Accreditation in North-Eastern states 7

2.5 Status of Accreditation in Eastern states 8

2.6 Status of Accreditation in Southern states 8

2.7 Status of Accreditation in Central states 8

2.8 Status of Accreditation in Western states 9

3 Why to Cancel NABET? 10

3.1 When there is a system for appraisal of EIA reports by EAC at MoEF, why

we need another scheme?

10

3.2 Monopoly of NABET 11

3.3 Qualification and experience of Assessors and Committee Members 12

3.4 Creation of Unemployment 14

3.5 Fees prescribed are exorbitant 15

3.6 How two assessors of different background assess all 12 functional area

experts?

16

3.7 Lack of transparency in assessment 16

3.8 Conflict of Interest and no need for NABET, under present composition of

SEACs/ EACs & NABET committees

22

3.9 Latest judgment of NGT affirming that the O.M. has no legal sanctity 26

3.10 Helping each other attitude between subordinate officers / Directors and the

Senior Bureaucrats at MoEF

27

3.11 Blatantly ignoring of Court Orders by NABET & MOEF 27

3.12 Incompetent operation of NABET/ QCI 28

3.13 Other irrational issues in NABET scheme 28

4 Constructive Suggestions 37

5 Conclusion 39


Page | 1

Chapter 1. Introduction

In order to improve the quality of Environment Impact Assessment reports prepared under

EIA, Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, Ministry of Environment and Forests

(MoEF) introduced 'Scheme for Accreditation of EIA Consultant Organizations' through National

Accreditation Board for Education & Training (NABET), Quality Council of India in December 2009

(Annexure - 1). The basis of the introduction of the scheme is not available with MOEF since MOEF

has not conducted any study on faulty EIA’s nor has any statistics to prove the assumption that EIA’s

are faulty. Several RTIs have been filed over the last years to obtain this information, but to no avail.

Without understanding the factual positions on ground and competence of NABET, MoEF made the

scheme compulsory in a short span of time and the result is evident today that the entire scheme is

described as 'biased, unscientific, illegal and illogical'.

Plenty of EIA consultant organizations have been rejected by giving false and unethical

justifications in the last 3 years and NABET assessors and ineligible secretariat is directly involving in

making the decisions for the country and created a havoc. Various environmental professional and

young graduates are directly thrown out to street and huge amount of unemployment exists in the

environmental sector and the youngsters find its difficulty to sustain in the sector. As a result, NABET

and its assessors sheltered under the umbrella of MoEF for causing social injustice to the country

which is legally unjustifiable. Various consultant organizations in the country questioned the said

scheme and its aberration in various High Courts and obtained stay order for the entire scheme.

Due to the immense pressure of assessors and NABET secretariat, MoEF published the draft

gazette stating the scheme is mandatory by inviting public comments. However, most of the

environmental experts in the country sent their apprehensions to MoEF stating the entire scheme was

developed to create jobs for retired bureaucrats, MoEF officials, officials from PSUs, etc and the

leadership for the entire scheme was set out by ex-secretary of MoEF. During his tenure at MoEF, he

initiated the scheme, went on to retire from MOEF and join QCI as Chairman of the accreditation

committee and is now the Chairman, QCI. The bureaucratic nexus between IAS officers makes it

impossible for succeeding Secretaries of MOEF to break the stronghold of QCI on MOEF.

Off course, in the name of the improving quality of EIA, certain white elephants were

benefited directly at NABET secretariat and indirectly as assessors. The situation has deteriorated in

such a way that, MoEF doesn't have any control on the NABET and it is evident from their minutes of

meeting published in their website.

At the outset it may be pointed out that the issuance of the draft notification permitting only

those environment consultant organizations who are accredited by QCI or NABET for a particular

sector or area is impermissible as the said issue of the excessive delegation of power by the MOEF to

QCI/NABET is sub judice before various High Courts of the country. It is relevant to take note that


Page | 2

various High Courts have stayed the operation of the office memorandums and subsequent Scheme

issued by QCI / NABET, therefore, the present act of MOEF in issuing the draft notification dated

19.07.2013 to incorporate the provision of ratifying the role of QCI / NABET while under challenge

before various courts, amounts to interference in the administration of justice which is impermissible.

It appears that MOEF vide the draft notification is endeavoring to cover its previous illegalities and

irregularities committed in order to give legal sanctity to QCI / NABET, which at present is acting in

contravention of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the

Act).

It is pertinent to state that the action on part of MOEF in delegating its rulemaking power to

QCI/NABET is excessive and in direct contravention of the provisions of the Act and all action taken

by QCI/ NABET is a complete nullity and without jurisdiction, therefore, the issuance of the draft

notification is nothing but an afterthought. The legislature has been provided with vide powers of

delegation however it is subject to the limitation that it cannot delegate uncontrolled powers. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a catena of judgments, laid down that the legislature may, after laying

down the legislative policy, confer discretionary or administrative powers to work out details ―within

the framework of the legislative policy‖.

For the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing

controlling and abating environmental pollution, MOEF ought to have some basis to conclude that in

absence of recognized consultant the quality of environment is suffering. Furthermore, it is also

pertinent to mention Accreditation is not the guarantee that EIA report prepared by Accredited

consultants will compulsorily be cleared by various Appraisal Committees, hence the purpose of

accreditation is questionable.

What is relevant to understand here, whether, over the past 4 years, since the illegal

delegation of powers by MOEF to QCI/ NABET, has the quality of EIA Reports improved?

The whole objective of EIA notification 2006 was to make the Environment Clearance

procedure quicker and faster compare to earlier notification. The current status is all projects –

irrespective of size or sector or location or cost or environment impacts are getting delayed beyond

any reasonable time. The objective itself is getting defeated. The proposed amendment will make the

things worse and getting EC will become a task rather than creating a project. This will not be good

for the country as well as for the health of already sick economy. With existing consultants-

accredited or non- accredited – projects are not getting approval in reasonable time period. After the

proposed amendment, very few consultants will be in the field to prepare EIA and EMP – ultimately

resulting in paralyzing the EC system. Over a period of time, it will come to stand still. In view of

this, it is not advisable to introduce a scheme which will result in only delay in environment clearance.


Page | 3

It is said that by bringing the accreditation scheme, quality of EIA and EMP report will

improve. We agree that there has to be continual improvement in consultants’ reports, but we do not

agree with the scheme by which it has been assumed that quality will improve. The Ministry should

come out with quantitative data indicating the difference between EIA reports prepared by accredited

and non accredited consultants. The accreditation scheme was introduced in the year 2009 and now

you should have complete set of data regarding quality of EIA/EMP reports prepared by various

organizations. In the absence of such data, it is unrealistic to bring the notification and make the

accreditation compulsory. The scheme itself has no mechanism for self-improvement and NABET has

passed the onus of training consultants to NGO’s like CSE (representative of whom is also member of

NABET committee), who themselves have never prepared an EIA report. The incompetency of CSE

is evident from their comments available in their own website on EIAs which was awarded

environmental clearance.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India issued an Office

Memorandum dated 2nd December 2009 making it mandatory for all EIA Consultants to have the

accreditation from NABET/QCI. As per the said memorandum an EIA / EMP Report prepared by

non-accredited EIA Consultants will not be entertained after 30th June 2010. There were several

Office Memorandums issued thereafter. All the OMs and the scheme of accreditation has been

challenged before various high courts of the country being Gujarat, Karnataka, Delhi, Odisha,

Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, West Bengal etc, vide Writ Petition No. SCA 10311 OF 2012, SCA

4979 of 2012, SCA 4974 of 2012, SCA 1782 of 2013, SCA 9679 of 2013, SCA 9680 of 2013

[Gujarat], SB Civil WP No. 3471 of 2013 [Rajasthan], WP 4651(W) of 2013, WP 13896 (W) of 2013

[Kolkata], WP (C) 12639/2012 [Orissa], CWP 10832 of 2012 (O&M) [Punjab & Haryana] and WP

1530-1531/2012 (GM-RES) [Bengaluru]. MOEF is well aware that the Hon’ble High Courts across

the country have not only issued notice but also granted stay in the said Writ Petition. It appears that

the MOEF to nullify these orders, has issued the proposed draft notification. This seems to be

vindictive in nature and biased mind for bringing the accreditation scheme. The right course should

have been calling the Association of Environment Consultants as well as aggrieved parties who

approached to high court and discuss the issue and at least try to understand the view points of the

consultants.

The Constitution of India has provided freedom to professionally qualified people to practice

in the area of their expertise. People with qualification of M.B.B.S. are allowed to practice without

any accreditation. Similarly citizens with law degree are doing practice in courts. The chartered

accountants, company secretaries, architects, structural engineers and several other equally important

professions have no such scheme of accreditation. The professions are managed by simple registration

with respective professional bodies. It is difficult to understand why the MOEF is bent upon bringing

such notification to take away the fundamental right of environment consultants. It would have been


Page | 4

well appreciated if MOEF could support in creating legal identity of Environment Consultants

organization and in turn the association can provide registration of environment consultants or firms.

The association can take care of professional ethics and improving quality of EIA/EMP reports.

Without prejudice to our previous contentions, it is pointed out, in the absence of any checks

and balances by MOEF against QCI, the entire scheme formulated by QCI/NABET is ill conceived

with only target to earn money by NABET and its associated people- so called assessor and

committee members. The assessor and committee members are all retired bureaucrats and/or

academics. Hardly anybody is having real consultancy exposure- leave apart experience. It has now

become a ―money making racket‖ where the QCI/NABET deliberately does not carry out its due

diligence at the relevant stages, leading to unfair rejections of the applications. It will not be wrong to

say that QCI/NABET has turned out to be “Environmental Mafia”.

The draft Gazette Notification by MoEF (S.O. 2204(E)) was published on 19.07.2013 and

more than 10 months have passed and so far the final notification has not come. As learnt from

MoEF, the validity of any draft Gazette Notification is for 6 months only and within which if the

final notification is to be published or else the draft Gazette Notification become null and void.

Therefore, in effect MoEF understood the gravity of the situation and dropped the idea of issuance

of Gazette Notification. This is a welcome sign on the part of MoEF.

Numerous applications have been rejected on frivolous grounds or after the final stage of

office assessment on account of incomplete documents that ought to have been pointed out at earlier

Stages I or II by QCI. This is done only after money in the form of “fees” is extracted from the

consultant organizations. This practice is strongly opposed.

The MOEF has formed various committees for different sectors and invited experts from a

range of fields to evaluate EIA/EMP reports before granting Environment Clearance. In other words,

it has out sourced the experienced man power for appraisal of reports. It is good and appreciable step.

But in NABET scheme – more emphasis is on in- house full time people rather than out sourcing to

academically qualified and experienced people for different categories. This is vital and biggest issue

of opposition of the scheme.

The collusion and manipulation on account of the Scheme is writ at large in as much as it is

incomprehensible as to how members of the SEAC / SEIAA / EAC’s are also members of

Accreditation / Surveillance/ Assessment Committees of the QCI/NABET and furthermore, officials

retiring from MOEF / CPCB are immediately joining QCI/ NABET in various capacities.

Another instance of glaring contradiction is the difference in qualifications prescribed by the

scheme for an EIA coordinator and statutory qualifications prescribed for being a member of the

SEAC/ SEIAA:- The qualification prescribed for becoming EIA coordinator, the scheme requires

Bachelor’s degree in engineering or master’s degree in science with minimum seven years’


Page | 5

experience whereas as regards the qualification and experience for becoming member of state level

expert committee requirements for appraisal of EIA report- it is mentioned in EIA notification of

2006. The requirement is bachelor’s degree in engineering or master’s degree in science with

minimum four years experience. It means more experienced person with minimum seven years will

get his/her EIA report appraised by less experienced person. It is for the MOEF to respond whether

such stark contradiction can be permitted and whether the qualifications prescribed in the Scheme can

override the qualifications statutorily prescribed by MOEF.

An issue of sectarian expert is non-digestible. An environment expert can predict impacts

based on specific environment issues involve in particular project. One cannot distinguish cement

industry environment expert/ power industry environment expert/fertilizer industry environment

expert and so on. There could be more exposure of specific sector for some individuals. But it does

not mean that person cannot perform in other sectors. The environment consultant or firm could be

expert in environment and related regulatory issues. The NABET requirement of exposure and EIA

preparation of that sector is illogical.

It is also worth mentioning that 2 assessors visit and conduct interview for all EC’s and

FAE’s, which is impermissible. It is very hard to comprehend that how can 2 people are said to be

experts on all sectors and functional areas for which a firm has applied.

Any accreditation scheme in any sector is an optional scheme where one applies for

accreditation in order to establish its quality for better market standing. Under the present Scheme,

instead of enabling consultant organizations and potential clients, works more like a ―licensing‖

scheme. The consultant who has not been granted ―license‖ (accreditation) cannot work at all. It is

difficult to understand the logic behind such scheme.

Thus there are fundamental objections against the scheme. We welcome streamlining of

environment consultancy services, but not in the manner prescribed by NABET/QCI.

In this reference, it is worth mentioning scheme of recognition of environment auditor

implemented by Gujarat Pollution Control Board at the behest of Hon. Gujarat High Court vide order

dated 20/12/1996. The scheme is working nicely and with effective monitoring of GPCB, it has

helped industries and statutory authorities for improvement of environment.

We are not writing here to dilute the purpose of the scheme but we are here to show case how

the scheme is unscientific and benefiting certain section of people in the country. The entire scheme

was not formulated through grass root approach and is best example on how the top-down approach

in the country fails to address the concerns of the common man.

Evidences are crystal clear from last 5 years on how the scheme fall down in the country and

at the end we are come out with a alternative solution to the problem of improving the quality of EIA

reports prepared by the consultants.


Page | 6

Chapter 2. Statistics of Accreditation

2.1. State wise list of organizations applied for accreditation and no. of organizations accredited

by NABET

Table - 1 List of accredited organizations in the country

Sl.No Name of the State No. of Applications filed No. of Accredited Organizations

1 Andra Pradesh 25 19

2 Arunachal Pradesh - -

3 Assam 3 2

4 Bihar 1 1

5 Chhattisgarh 4 1

6 Goa 2 1

7 Gujarat 34 20

8 Haryana 25 19

9 Himachal Pradesh 1 1

10 Jammu and Kashmir 3 1

11 Jharkhand 6 6

12 Karnataka 21 7

13 Kerala 3 3

14 Madya Pradesh 5 2

15 Maharashtra 48 27

16 Manipur - -

17 Meghalaya - -

18 Mizoram - -

19 Nagaland - -

20 Orissa 15 6

21 Punjab 3 -

22 Rajasthan 15 7

23 Sikkim - -

24 Tamil Nadu 30 10

25 Tripura - -

26 Uttaranchal 6 1

27 Uttar Pradesh 11 5

28 West Bengal 21 9

29 Delhi 49 20

30 Lakshadeep - -

31 Pondicherry - -

32 Andaman and Nicobar Islands - -

33 Chandigarh - -

34 Dadar and Nagar Haveli - -

35 Daman and Diu - -

Source: NABET website, statistics as on 13.05.2014


Page | 7

2.2. Status of Accreditation in India

2.3. Status of Accreditation in Northern states

2.4. Status of Accreditation in North-Eastern states


Page | 8

2.5. Status of Accreditation in Eastern states

2.6. Status of Accreditation in Southern states

2.7. Status of Accreditation in Central states


Page | 9

2.8. Status of Accreditation in Western states

It is prudent to mention here that the accreditations are misleading in their numbers. Of the

total consultants in the accreditation list, only 28 organizations are completely accredited while the

balance are provisionally accredited. The provisional accreditation is granted for a three months

period during which the applicant organization has to fulfill the deficits identified in the audit, for

grant of complete accreditation. It is important to note, that a provisionally accredited organisation

remains in the provisionally accredited for not just more than three months but even years. Therefore,

what is the sanctity of this system? In fact, it is a mockery. Furthermore, how can any organization

operate with a the ―provisional accreditation‖ sword hanging on their necks, never knowing when the

arbitrariness of NABET can eliminate them from the accreditation system overnight.


Page | 10

Chapter 3. Why to cancel NABET?

3.1 When there is a system for appraisal of EIA reports by EAC at MoEF, why we need another

scheme?

As per EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, EAC at MoEF and SEAC and

SEIAA at state level exists for review of EIA reports supported by various technical staff. However,

when there is a crystal clear guidelines for choosing EAC/SEAC members in the notification and their

duty is to review the reports prepared by the consultants and of necessary cross verify the authenticity

by conducting site inspections.

NABET during the surveillance assessment or during the re-accreditation of the accredited

consultant organization, reviews the EIA reports submitted by the consultant organization to them

(though it is not a mandate given by MoEF). The observations (shortcomings) of the EIA report by

NABET are published in their website.

You may please note that, by the time NABET reviews the EIA report, the project (for which

EIA study was conducted by the consultant organization) might have been already accorded

Environmental Clearance by MoEF (or the concerned SEIAA of the State) months ago and substantial

investment has already been made in the project.

A typical case giving NABET observations & its repercussions is quoted below:-

Proceedings at MOEF

Project EIA of Exploration, Testing of wells and

Commercial Exploration of Mannargudi CBM

Block, MG-CBM-2008/IV, in

District Thiruvarur & Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu by

M/s Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd.

(GEECL)

Consultant M/s Kadam Environmental Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,

Vadodara, Gujarat.

Date of issuance of Environmental Clearance by

MoEF 12/09/2012

Date of publishing of observations of the

consultant organization by NABET 04/10/2013

NABET Observations on the said EIA report during the re-accreditation (NABET RA MOM

dated 04.10.2014).

a. In identification of impacts, significance aspects not discussed.

b. Reliance on secondary sources are dominating; primary data collection is low.


Page | 11

c. For drilling rigs, major mitigation measures are at the time of construction phase and not during

operation phase; legal issues are not adequately addressed.

Implications

(i) A NGO or an environmentalist can file a case at NGT/Supreme Court stating that the

Environmental Clearance issued by MoEF / SEIAA did not look at the observations made by

NABET, a body approved and constituted by MoEF for improving the quality of EIA. MoEF / SEIAA

along with the project proponent can be dragged to the Court by the action of a body created by

MoEF.

(ii) Currently, the practice of extortion of money by the vested groups from the project proponent at

different parts of the county for trivial matters are rampant. They will use the ―observations‖

published by NABET as a tool for extortion of money from the project proponent since it is easily and

readily available to them on a platter i.e. platter of “NABET’s website”.

(iii) Why Shri. B. Sen Gupta (Former Member Secretary, CPCB) is currently member of EAC,

Industrial Committee, MoEF and Member of NABET Committee didn't look at the above

observations while granting Environmental Clearance at MoEF for the said project and why is

allowed to publish the above observations in NABET website? It is unclear. The same person plays

some role at EAC and some other role at NABET.

3.2 Monopoly of NABET

Still the unanswered mystery was - why MoEF choose NABET? Why can't other organizations in

India for the accreditation purposes?

The answers for the above questions are simple and below;

1. Former Secretary of MoEF currently with NABET made conspicuous lobby with MoEF

officials on behalf of NABET to get control on environmental issues in the country and his

vested interests are crystal clear that they need power even after the retirement and creating

parallel MoEF in the name of NABET.

2. Look at the profile of NABET secretariat committee members and assessors. They have all

enjoyed as members, chairman at EAC and other various committees at MoEF after the

enactment of EIA Notification, 2006. And now there were no further opportunities at MoEF

for any other committees and hence they sheltered under NABET for doing wrong things.

3. Hence, it is clear that, QCI and NABET employed retired officials of MoEF and made lobby

with MoEF to obtain this scheme.


Page | 12

3.3 Qualification and experience of Assessors and Committee Members

The education qualification and experience matters for any assessment. As per the scheme,

requires 12 functional area experts. However, NABET itself doesn’t have qualified staff to assess all

12 functional area experts. Most of the staff at NABET are ISO 9001:2008 QMS assessors and very

few are having practical essence of doing EIA studies. Whereas in the case of assessors, it was

shocking that, they do not even conducted single EIA studies during their tenure become the

assessors.

Table - 2 Qualification and experience of NABET secretariat staff and assessors

Sl.No Name Qualification Total years of

experience (Years)

1. NABET Secretariat

1 Mr. Vipin Sahni B. Sc.

MBA

24

2 Mr. A. K.Ghose B.Sc. Engg.

M.Sc Engg.

40

3 Dr. Hari Prakash M.Sc. & Ph.D Agriculture

M.Sc. Ecology & Env.

PGDCBM

19 years

4 Mr. Abhay sharma BSc (H) Botany

M.Sc. Env. Management

3

5 Ms. Jyoti Dadhiya BSc. Geography

M.A Geography

Masters in Env. Planning

1

6 Ms. Sakshi Bhargava B.Sc. Applied Life Sci (Env. Sci) 1

7 Ms. Preeti Pawaria B.Sc. General

M.Sc. Environmental science

1

2. NABET Assessors

1 Dr. A.K.A. Rathi B.E. chemical 38

2 Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra M.Sc Agriculture

D.Lit

37

3 Dr. H.K Parwana M.Sc Chemistry

Ph.D Chem

27

4 Dr. L. Ramakrishnan M.Sc Analytical Chem.

Ph.D Molecular Str

PGD EE

Ph.D Env. Management

34

5 Dr. U.C Mishra M.Sc Physics

Ph.D Physics

53 years

7 Mr. Balaram Basu B.E Civil

M.Tech PHE

36

8 Mr. K.B. Deb B.E Chemical

M.Tech Chemical

40

9 Mr. N.K. Kuttiappan M.Sc Applied Chem.

M.Tech Env Sci & Engg.

30


Page | 13

10 Mr. Niranjan Bagchi B.E Metallurgical

M.S(Engg), Metallurgical

MS Env Toxicology

40

11 Mr.R.P.Sharma B.E Chem

M.Tech Plant & Equipment

38

13 Mr. S. Bhowmik MSc Soil Microbiology

Ph. D Soil Microbiology

28

14 Mr. T. Venugopal B.E civil

M.Tech PHE

27

15 Mr. Tapan Chakravarty B.E Metallurgy

Post Graduate Diploma in

Environment and Ecology

42

16 Mr. V.S.S Bhaskara

Murthy

B.Tech Chemical

M.Tech Petroleum Ref. Engg

34

17 Mr. Y.S.Murty B.E Civil

M.Sc PHE

M.S (Civil)

51

For example, Dr. H K Parwana, Former Chief Scientific Officer of Punjab PCB qualified as

post graduate in Chemistry and did research work in chemistry become an assessor. She didn't even

carry out single EIA in her life time and how can she know about EIA studies and assess all 12

functional area especially like Ecology and socio-economics.

Another example, Dr. HC Sharathchandra, M.Sc and PhD in agriculture became the assessor

on what grounds? He has immense teaching knowledge at agricultural universities and over night he

become the chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board during Janata Dal government

since he was cousin of Shri. HD Devegowda, Former Prime Minister of this country. After he become

the Chairman of the PCB in 2008, he started turning pages with respect to EIA Notification, Water

Act and Air Acts. If a candidate of such caliber becomes the assessor how can we expect justice from

NABET for all the functional area experts.

One more interesting examples was, RP Sharma, AK Gupta, Balram Basu, YS Murty, etc are

graduated as Environmental Engineers and worked as Environmental Engineer in various public

sector undertakings like NTPC, etc. During their tenure they have entrusted the work of obtaining

clearances for their PSUs through separate consultants and claimed in front of NABET and consultant

organizations that they have conducted various EIAs. Further, they don't even know what is the

difference between A and B category projects become the assessors and rejected various experts in the

country. It's sad !!!!!!!!!!!!

For instance, for most of the organizations, the assessors have rejected / blindly accepted

Ecology and Biodiversity and socio-economic studies / experts due to the lack understanding in the

similar field. They don't even know what is the spelling of 'Asclepiadaceae' in taxonomy and they have


Page | 14

assessed and rejected various subject experts in the field since last 5 years. Don't you think it is a total

nuisance, unscientific and illogical.

3.4 Creation of Unemployment

The scheme only requires and approve only experienced professionals. Hence, all the

environmental consultancy organizations didn't recruit fresh graduates in the environmental sector.

Therefore the problem of unemployment is aggravating day by day.

There is no scope in the system for a fresher to serve as an individual or free lancer. They

have the option for an ―associate FAE‖ (a concept which was added after much protests and is not

reflected in the initial schemes) and are forced to qualify by working for minimum three years

experience before they can have their own identity. Fresher’s are not being hired by EIA consultant

organizations as they do not have any experience. No consultant wants to hire an ―associate FAE‖ as

they are not counted towards the accreditation process. Those who enter the EIA field are not paid

salaries at par with their colleagues who went into research or into industry. This way, they will be

forced out of the EIA stream. The intelligent students are getting better jobs and are joining at higher

salaries where they have recognition and respect. If this continues, only the weaker or below average

students will enter the EIA line and instead of having better quality reports, the quality of reports will

decline. In a country, which is already suffering from slow growth, instead of encouraging the capable

youngsters to participate in national building, such notifications from MOEF are obstructing their

growth. All architects can register themselves with their association and start a practice. All CAs can

register themselves with their governing institution and start practice. Hence, why has MOEF not

started such a registration system, which will be welcome by students?

There no provision is there for allowing long serving BSc and bachelor graduates to be

brought in the mainstream. Now, at the age of 40+ years, are they supposed to go and obtain a

Masters degree?

There are large no. of very experience environmental consulting individuals (with businesses)

who have not been given accreditation and neither will they be given accreditation until and unless

they leave their current jobs and join an accredited firm. When there is severe dearth of qualified

manpower that the same people who are in EAC/SEAC and in employment in various agencies are

serving on NABET assessment committees, then how the actual working population are being denied

the option of retaining original employment and providing services to other firms through MOUs with

each other?

Many consultancy firms are small and cannot afford to have such large number of

compulsory experts as required by scheme. Some sectors such as construction, do not even require so

many experts. There is no scope for collaboration between companies for resource sharing.


Page | 15

3.5 Fees prescribed are exorbitant

QCI and NABET established with an objective of providing services to improve the

quality of EIA studies and it is believed to be nonprofit organization. However, following

statistics reveal that NABET with respect to EIA scheme made huge profits every year and it is

running like any other corporate company in India.

Hence, NABET is in profit of about 1,04,40,000/- since last 5 years. In the name of

quality, a nonprofit organization is making huge profits. What is this?

It is also prudent to bring to highlight that it has become a common practice for NABET

to direct organization to ―re-apply‖ on the basis of a one year old audit, which contained non-

conformities (Ex- M/s Kalyani Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneshwar). Their intent is to generate

more revenue through re-application & desk assessment fee. How does an organisation become

qualified for accreditation after re-application within two months time, when it was not

considered eligible to continue accreditation earlier ? These are tactics of NABET to harass and

generate revenue.

Sl.No Particulars Amount in Rs.

1. Amount prescribed by NABET for consultant Organizations

a Up to 5 sectors or not exceeding 10 experts 30,000/-

b 6-10 sectors or not exceeding 15 experts 40,000/-

c 11-15 sectors or not exceeding 20-25 experts 50,000/-

d >15 sectors or >25 experts 60,000/-

e Hotel Accommodation, travelling and fees for assessors

should be actual and borne by consultant organization

-

2. Assumptions considered for calculation

a Assuming 365 organizations applied for Initial Assessment

i.e 365 x 40,000/- per organization

1,46,00,000/-

b Assuming 167 organizations underwent Surveillance

Assessment and further start with Re-accreditation i.e 167 x

40,000/- per organization x 3 years

2,00,40,000/-

c Total net income collected by NABET sine last 5 years

(A)

3,46,40,000/-

d Salaries for NABET secretariat per month 4,00,000/- per

month x 12 x 5 years

1,92,00,000/-

e Other expenses 10,00,000/- per year x 5 years 50,00,000/-

Total Expenses in last 5 years (B) 2,42,00,000/-

Total income = Net income - net expenses (A- B) 1,04,40,000/-


Page | 16

3.6 How two assessors of different background assess all 12 functional area experts?

Shockingly, as we discussed in the previous sections regarding the qualification of

assessors, 2 assessors of different back ground will assess all 12 functional area experts. Most of

the assessors do come prepared with the set of questions and checklist for assessing the experts.

However, they are not interviewing the expert with the broader scope of subject area and

knowledge.

For instance, in one of the organization assessor asked to tell the family name of the

particular plant / animal which doesn't belong to his geographical location for a EB expert. There

are more than 15000 species of plants recorded in India and it is common sense that how can an

expert remember all family names of the plants belongs to India. At the broader context he will be

identified the plants with the help of local guides / manual, etc based on the geographical context

and experience.

Another instance for a young professional who is inducted first time under scheme was

asked ―what does section 3 of subsection 2 says with respect to Water Act?‖ Can you imagine the

height of nuisance? If we ask the same question to a lawyer, can you imagine his status and as per

the NABET assessors he must be knowing all sections of the acts, rules and guidelines enacted in

India. Is it practically correct?

3.7 Lack of transparency in assessment

The office assessment is entirely a biased system where an NABET advisor wish to help

particular organization he will be attending that assessment. For plenty of organizations most of

the NBAET committee members are known to them and they have hand in gloves with the

consultants. NABET secretariat have already decided to close certain organizations and for those

organizations, irrespective of proven experience they have rejected the accreditation. In fact, any

consultant who dares to complain against them to MOEF gets targeted and NABET

makes sure that the consultancy firm & their associates either does not get accreditation

or gets demoted from category A to category B. Another example of this is M/s Min Mec

Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi were not only were rejected on self-assumed grounds without

seeking clarification but also barred from reapplication for one year, which even the High Court

of Delhi has declared as illegal. NABET has gone out of its way to sabotage the credibility of

Min Mec, who has been practicing in the field of Environmental Impact Assessment since 1986,

since the advent of Environment (Protection) Act.


Page | 17

It is important to bring to attention here that organization which were not accredited

earlier and approached High Courts for relief, when they go for accreditation, they not only get

accreditation in multiple sectors but are also made to withdraw their case prior to grant of

accreditation. The most recent of this kind of organization is M/s Vardan Environet, Gurgaon in

addition to several other across the country. Another example is Pushpin Shah, Envisafe

Environmental Consultants, Ahmedabad (sr. no. 61 of QCI directory linked with MoEF

website). He got stay order against all office memoranda of MoEF, New Delhi related

with NABET/QCI scheme along with other consultants in Gujarat on Jan. 24, 2013. He

got QCI accreditation for 9 sectors in category 'B'. He asked the advocate to remove his

name from the case.

NABET has different set of rules for different applicants. In cases, where there are

adverse comments from National Green Tribunal on the inferior quality of the report and how it

has been detrimental to the project, NABET has taken no credible action against such

organizations. There are so many instances of controversial reports by accredited

consultants as follows, mostly in NGT, the list by no means complete :

M/s VIMTA Labs, Hyderabad in multiple projects:

Niyamgiri project, Vendanta Mines is found faulty by Green Court

2640 MW Thermal Power Plant at Sompeta of Nagarjuna Construction

Company. EC cancelled on 15.06.2010 based faulty EIA. On 23.05.2012, NGT

has clearly stated ―All the aforesaid errors and inadequacies could have been

avoided by EIA consultant, but then it appears that there was a callous attitude

which created unnecessary hurdles in appreciation of the report. Further, it

appears that EIA report did not contain the findings of the special studies carried

out by the various agencies at the time of Public Consultation. As the EIA

Report is the key on which the EIA process revolves, it is important that EIA

report prepared should be scientific and trustworthy and without any mistakes or

ambiguity. MoEF may ensure that the quality of the EIA report remains fool

proof and any consultants whose EIA reports are not found satisfactory, should

be blacklisted.‖


Page | 18

Chettinad Power for its 1200 MW TPP- environmental clearance granted was

challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the Appeal No. 12 of

2011. The Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in its judgment dated 30.05.2012

had directed the Ministry to ―appraise the project based on updated EIA report

both on terrestrial and marine ecology and also based on objections / suggestions

received (if any) on the aforesaid updated reports‖. The Hon’ble Tribunal had

also suspended the environmental clearance until the appraisal mentioned above

is carried out and the Ministry takes a decision.

M/s WAPCOS Limited, which is a provisionally accredited consultant as per the

latest list, is allowed to carry out EIAs for river valley and hydroelectric projects.

Two of the most controversial EIAs that this consultant has prepared relate to the

Teesta III hydroelectric project in Sikkim and the Athirapilly project in the state of

Kerala, wherein EIA was also proved to be inadequate by the High Court of Kerala.

Further, the organisation has submitted an another EIA report at Karnataka for Sonthi

Lift Irrigation Scheme for Public Hearing, wherein they have not collected the

baseline data for 3 seasons and within 15 days report have been prepared and

submitted to KSPCB for public hearing. In between the report, various other project

areas were also evident.

M/s Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd (AFCL), which is also on the

provisional list. AFCL had prepared the EIA for the Tipaimukh Hydro-Electric

Project in Manipur. When the EIA was being considered by the MoEF's Expert

Appraisal Committee (EAC) in 2006-2007, the latter had detected several

discrepancies

M/s M. N. Dastur & Company (P) Ltd., Kolkata involved in the controversial

POSCO project in Odisha

M/s EMTRC Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Currently involved in Jindal’s Super Thermal Power Station at Tamnar,

Chhattisgarh challenged in NGT


Page | 19

M/s Scania Steel & Power Ltd. - on 9.02.2012 the NGT has set aside the EC and

commented ―It appears that the EIA Consultant has taken it in a very casual

way‖ and ―Steps should also be taken for black listing Consultants found to have

reported “cooked data” or ―wrong data‖ and for producing sub-standard

EIA/EMP report.‖

M/s Global Enviro Labs involved in Vedanta Aluminum Limited's Lanjigarh

alumina refinery.

M/s Bhagvati Ana Labs Limited involved in

the Pirna Iron Ore Mine of Sesa Goa whose EC was cancelled in September

2011 for suppressing information and faulty environment impact assessment.

They received accreditation in June 2010 and surveillance committee discussed

case in June 2012 and their accreditation is continued till date. There is no

evidence of even investigation on the matter by QCI or BALs reapplication

Tiroda Iron Ore Mine at Tiroda village, Sawantwadi Taluk, Sindhudurg District

of Maharashtra State of M/s Gogte Minerals. NGT on 12.09.2011 has ruled

―EIA report which was prepared at the behest of project proponent, does not

disclose proper and sufficient facts and information. ........ Though the Public

Hearing was conducted mostly in accordance with the procedure, the various

objections raised in the Public Hearing, as reflected in the Public Hearing

minutes placed on record were not properly evaluated and addressed in the EIA

report.‖

M/s B S Envi-Tech (P) Ltd, Hyderabad involved in

Bhavanapadu Thermal Power Plant of East Coast Energy Pvt. Ltd, in

Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh

Dheeru powergen’s Katghora power plant EC rejected on misleading

information about location in critically polluted area

M/s Envirotech East Pvt. Ltd.

M/s South Asian Petrochem, an EIA was made for PET resin manufacturing

plant at Haldia, an area under moratorium, a fact which would not have escaped


Page | 20

the EIA consultant and yet no action has been initiated against them. The EC

was cancelled after issuance

Proposed organic synthetic plant in Bishnupur for M/s GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd., a

sector for which the consultant does not have accreditation

Detox Corporation Pvt. Ltd. involved 300 MW thermal power plant project of the

OPG Power Gujarat Limited in the ecologically and socially fragile inter-tidal area of

Kutch coast in Gujarat.

M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. - 1000 MW Coal Based Thermal Power Plant at Naraj

Marthapur, Cuttack, Orissa of The Tata Power Company Ltd. (NGT application

79/2012)

M/s ABC Environ Solutions renamed as ABC Techno Labs Pvt Ltd. - EC cancelled

vide NGT order dated 24.02.2011 for 1400 TPD Integrated Municiapl Solid Waste

Processing plant, Pallikarani village, Tamilnadu due to suppression of information by

consultant and project proponent

Unistar Environment & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd. Involved in a Specialty Alumina

Chemical manufacturing unit at village Reladi in Taluka Bhuj, District Kutch. NGT

noted ―Consultants should gather some primary material with respect to the socio-

economic data in the Project area and do carry out some preliminary survey to

understand the basic needs of the people in the Project area so that appropriate

environmental management plan is formulated. In the instant case, nothing of this

sort appears to have been conducted.‖ Thereafter NGT directed ―The Project

Proponent shall engage environmental consultant based on ToR approved by SEIAA

for conducting primary socio-economic survey in the area of influence wherein

special attention shall be paid to cover details of progressive farmers and their

cultivation practices.‖

L & T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Limited. - Directions from NGT/ NEAA to

revise and improve EIA to IL&FS Tamilnadu Power.


Page | 21

NEERI for the proposed 3X660 MW expansion of coal based thermal power unit at

Koradi Thermal Power Project in Nagpur district of Maharashtra. On 20.09.2011

deficiencies were pointed out by NGT

It is brought to your attention that in the ongoing NGT case of Cement plant in

Bhavnagar of M/s Nirma, after the High Court of Gujarat has decided in favour of the

Cement plant, their EIA consultant M/s Min Mec Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. had been denied

accreditation and banned for one year from reapplication (against the law of the land), yet

in none of the other equally or more serious offences (some repeat) by the above

mentioned consultants any credible action is evident by MOEF/ QCI/ NABET.

Apparently, there exists a nexus between ―favorite‖ consultants and QCI/ NABET.

Preference to organisation of relatives of assessor and accreditation/ surveillance

committee members. An example is the case of M/s Kadam Environmental Consultants,

Gujarat, which has got accreditation in an unusually large number of sectors- 23. Another

classic case is Envirotech East Pvt. Ltd. which is belongs to the relative of Dr. B

Sengupta and has accreditation in sectors. So much so that in the case of violations by

them explained earlier have been apparently ignored.

During a meeting between the Environmental Consultants Association

representatives and Mr Rajagopalan, Secretary, MOEF, it was understood from the

Secretary that MOEF was also interested in limiting the number of practicing consultants.

It appears that Secretary, MOEF is in nexus with NABET, perhaps with his own agenda

post-retirement.

Most of the accredited consultants do not have facility of accredited laboratory

and the consultants having MOEF/ NABL accredited labs are not accredited. Some

companies which were not even 6 months old at time of accreditation have been

accredited while companies preparing EIAs since last 20 years were not granted

accreditation. There has to be something fundamentally irrational in the accreditation

system for this kind of occurrences

The National Institutes like NEERI are not fully accredited. Very important

institutes like National Institute of Oceanography, NIOT, CRRI, BNHS, Colleges with

infrastructure & departments, GMRICS, SWRE, have been denied accreditation by


Page | 22

NABET. If the specialized institutes are not accredited to specialized studies, ex- marine

EIAs by Consultancy wing of NIO, Mumbai then who will do?

No consultant is accredited in the field of Nuclear power. Still nuclear plant reports are

being prepared, public hearing is being held and clearances are happening. In the interest

of the nation, the accreditation requirement is being by-passed. The same benefit should

be extended to all sectors. GDP is at all time low, industrialization is required and

accreditation process is slowing it down.

3.8 Conflict of Interest and no need for NABET, under present composition of

SEACs/ EACs & NABET committees

NABET has appointed following members who were employee of MOEF or

members of Expert Appraisal Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forest,

Government of India as their committee members thereby providing monitory benefits to

them.

1. Sh. Pradipto Ghosh, IAS (former Secretary, MoEF)

Regarding the bureaucrats, it is always said, when they are in service they don’t

do anything for the Country and for the Society. After retirement, they started repenting

and stated correcting the system for no use of anybody and for the reasons best known to

them. Typical example is the case of a retired bureaucrat, Shri Pradipto Ghosh, IAS, who

is the so called chairman of the Accreditation Committee since the inception of the

scheme. As all of you are aware that he was the Secretary, Ministry of Environment &

Forests, during the period when Mr. A. Raja was the Minister for Environment &

Forests. It was an open “sale of Environmental Clearance” happened during his time. It

is in everybody’s memory that so many NGO’s and magazines like ―Down to Earth‖

came out with articles ―Environmental Clearance for Sale‖. All these illegal activities in

the name of environment happened under the nose of Shri Pradipto Ghosh, IAS at

―Paryavaran Bhawan‖. But no action or movement from anyone including Mr. Pradipto

Ghosh, IAS, the then Secretary of MoEF. Now he stated repenting about the old days.

As a matter of fact, it is observed from the published minutes of the Accreditation/

Surveillance / re-accreditation meetings, the presence of Mr. Pradipto Ghosh in the

meetings at NABET are almost nil. The details are given below :-


Page | 23

RE-ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE MEETING

Total meeting held as on 11-04-2014 = 18

Sr. No. Name of the Member Status

1 Dr. Prodipto Ghosh, IAS, Ex-Secretary,

MoEF

In all meetings Absent

SURVEILLANCE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING



1 Dr. Prodipto Ghosh In 57 meetings Absent In 6 meeting Present

INITIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING



1 Dr. Prodipto Ghosh In 51 Absent In 23 Present

Dr. Pradipto Ghosh, Ex-Secretary, MoEF, who is instrumental in initiating the

scheme is not at all seen in the decision making process for more than one year. It was

told that he has resigned from the accreditation committee of NABET due to the high

corrupt practices prevailing in NABET. However, NABET is using his name for the

reasons best known to them. Or else, his name may be kept in the pay role of NABET as

a sleeping chairman and taking the monthly allowance from NABET for using his name

and his blessings. It is a doubtful case of his continuity in NABET. This matter needs a

detailed investigation.

2. Sh. Paritosh C. Tyagi – former chairman, C.P.C.B. (for 5 years)

and

3. Dr. B. Sen Gupta – former Member Secretary, C.P.C.B. (for 10

years)


Page | 24

Shri Paritosh C. Tyagi and Dr. B. Sen Gupta are members of the accreditation committee

from the inception of the accreditation scheme. The “great achievements” of these two

senior officers are noticeable.

The condition of river Yamuna is known to all. Hon’bel Supreme Court in year 2004

declared it as a sewer and not as river. The geographical location of river Yamuna in

Delhi territory is, it is flowing within 1 km. from the office of C.P.C.B. (Parivesh

Bhawan) Both the above mentioned officers served the Country and river Yamuna in

such a way so as to ensure that river Yamuna remain as a sewer.

It is also a well known fact that Delhi is declared as the most polluted city in the

world in terms of air quality by UN. Such a dubious distinction could be achieved by a

rigorous and meticulous hard work of both the above officers with the support of

officials from MoEF.

Far reaching powers were available to all the three above mentioned senior

officers under Environment Protection Act, 1986 and in the far end of their life they are

doing service to the nation by introducing the accreditation scheme of EIA consultant so

as to achieve the lost environmental glory of our country and which is a myth.

4. Bharat Bhushan former Director MoEF and currently member of SEAC-2,

Maharashtra is and Member of Accreditation committee NABET after retirement.

5. Dr. Asha Rajvanshi currently Member EAC, Mining, MoEF is also Member of

Accreditation committee of NABET

6. Prof B .B . Dhar former member EAC, Mining, MoEF is also Member of


7. Dr. S . Devotta current Chairman SEAC-1, Maharashtra is also Member of


8. Dr. C. K. Varshney current Member EAC, Nuclear, MOEF, former member, EAC

Mining (upto 2012), MOEF; former member, EAC Thermal (upto 2009), MoEF is also

Member of Accreditation committee of NABET

9. Shri Chandra Bhushan Director, CSE, NGO funded by MoEF also Member of

Accreditation committee of NABET. It is essential to identify his date of joining since it


Page | 25

is prudent to highlight that the Down To Earth magazine published by his organisation

had highlighted the adverse points of the NABET scheme. Is his inclusion by NABET a

step to pacify CSE and restrict adverse publicity? CSE is conducting training programs

for EIA/EMP is which the same experts who are in NABET are ―teaching‖. CSE itself

has never been known to have prepared a single EIA/EMP report. His organisation is

well aware of defaulting consultants as evidenced from the CSE website which analyses

such faulty EIAs, yet there is no evidence of credible action by the committee of which

he is a member.

RE-ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE MEETING

Total meeting held as on 11 -04-2014 = 18


1 Shri. Chandra Bhushan, Deputy Director

General, Centre for Science & Environment

In all meetings Absent

SURVEILLANCE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING



1 Shri. Chandra Bhushan In 59 meetings Absent In 4 meetings Present

INITIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING



1 Shri. Chandra Bhushan In 52 Absent In 22 Present

Sh. Chandra Bhushan, Deputy Director General, Centre for Science &

Environment who is not seen in the decision making process for more than one year.

However, NABET is using the name of a person from a reputed NGO for the reasons best

known to them. Or else his name may be kept in the pay role as a sleeping member and


Page | 26

taking the monthly allowance from NABET for using his name and his blessings. This

matter needs a detailed investigation.

10. K. P. Nyati current Member, Madhya Pradesh SEAC; former member Thermal EAC,

MOEF is also Member of Accreditation committee of NABET

There are two Technical Members who are/were Directors of Environmental

consultancy organization. Again, it is not clear why they are there and who nominated

them. On what basis were they chose? They are as under –

1. Dr. C. R. Wate : Director, National Environmental Engineering Research

Institute, Nagpur (NABET/QCI accredited EIA consultant organization) is

also Technical Committee Member of NABET

2. P. K. Taneja : former Director of JM Envirotech Gurgaon and now his wife is

Director of the consultancy organization (NABET/QCI accredited EIA

consultant organization).

Furthermore, NABET has not disclosed the list of its assessors on its website.

Perhaps it is to avoid identification of misdeeds by the same. However, by virtue of our

network we have come to know that Dr. A. K. A. Rathi is an assessor. He is also known

to be conducting EIA training programs (Anchor Institute for Infrastructure Sector,

Faculty of Planning and Public Policy, CEPT University) as well as relative of EIA

coordinator in M/s Kadam Environmental Consultants, Gujarat, which has got

accreditation in an unusually large number of sectors- 23. Mr. A. K. A. Rathi was earlier

with government of Gujarat and as a government representative he was director in all

CETP (Common Effluent Treatment Plant) projects of Gujarat. Lot of malpractices were

done by most of the CETP projects of Gujarat and today very few CETPs (hardly 2 or 3)

meet the discharge norms.

3.9 Latest judgment of NGT dt. 28-03-2014 affirming that the O.M. has no legal

sanctity

In the latest Judgment dt. 28-03-2014 by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal

(NGT), New Delhi has ruled that “Office Memorandum (O.M.) is an administrative

order and cannot frustrate the Legislative Act. In fact, it falls beyond the scope of

administrative powers”. The judgment is from the Principal Bench of NGT Delhi and


Page | 27

have all over India application. Therefore, apart from the Stay Orders from different

Hon’ble High Courts in the Country, the NGT Order extends the enforceability of Stay

throughout the Country nullifying the effect of O.M. of MoEF.

3.10 Helping each other attitude between subordinate officers / Directors and the

Senior Bureaucrats at MoEF

As you all are aware that NABET is the post retirement rehabilitation center for

the subordinate officers / Directors of MoEF and State Level Pollution Control Boards.

During their services at MoEF, they support the accreditation scheme so as to favor

NABET and ensure their berth after retirement. This aspect of nurturing the NABET

scheme by Directors of MoEF is well known to the senior bureaucrats. In order to get

bigger deals and assignments at the level of senior bureaucrats, they use the services of

directors for issuing necessary O.M.’s and desired notings in the files and make them as a

scape goat. The directors will blindly obey the verbal instructions of senior bureaucrats

for any matter in return of the favor the senior bureaucrats show to them in sustaining the

NABET scheme. In other words, the senior bureaucrats give loly pops to directors and

get big things done through them. A kind of reciprocal helping arrangement.

3.11 Blatantly ignoring of Court Orders by NABET & MOEF

The High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 07.11.2013 in matter of WP(C)

3141, 7034, 103, 2765 & 3648 of 2013states ―It is further directed that an application

submitted by an individual seeking empanelment even in his personal name, shall not be

rejected on the ground that the applicant is an individual.‖ NABET has neither challenge

the directions of the court nor started the individual accreditation system. Having brought

the matter to the High Court’s attention by the petitioner, the High Court redirected

compliance within 6 weeks which again NABET has not complied nor intends to comply.

It is a serious contempt of the Court.

It is also brought to attention that High Court of Rajasthan has stayed the

accreditation scheme vide its order . Yet the scheme continues to operate in violation of

the order.

It is important to note that in the NGT order dated 28.03.2014 in application no.

343 & 279 of 2013 has stated that ―Office Memorandum is an administrative order and


Page | 28

cannot frustrate the legislative act‖. The MoEF, therefore, has dearly cost the livelihood

of competent and sincere workers of this country to fulfill the vested interests of one

retired bureaucrat.

3.12 Incompetent operation of NABET/ QCI

NABET claims to be developing a system for the betterment of the country but in

that process, it is crossing boundaries and trampling over the constitutional rights of

people

There is no Quality Management System such as ISO 9001 being followed by

NABET. As a consequence they not just make mistakes but blunders. Due to one

such blunder on not following procedure, M/s Environmental Research and Services

(India) Pvt. Ltd. had to drag NABET to High Court of Odisha and were granted a

favorable decision against NABET

Where is the copy of the quality manual and quality assurance procedures of

NABET? Till date they have not responded to a very crucial RTI which will reveal

all their incompetency's

Numerous applications have been rejected on frivolous grounds or after the final

stage of office assessment on account of incomplete documents that ought to have

been pointed out at earlier Stages I or II by QCI. This is done only after money in the

form of ―fees‖ is extracted from the consultant organizations. This practice is

strongly opposed.

Till 05.10.2013, their rejected list of consultant as well as accredited list of

consultant, both showed the name of M/s Kalyani Laboratories. It is now that they

have removed the name from rejected list

Such an organisation which itself is inferior in the quality of their working should

absolutely not be allowed any authority over other organizations

3.13 Other irrational issues in NABET scheme

(a) The EIA Notification has given a Schedule of Industries on the basis of which EC

requirement and categorization into A and B is there. The accreditation scheme by

NABET has made their own ―Sectors‖, most of which are not in consonance with the


Page | 29

Notification, creating unnecessary confusion. Furthermore, an environmental

consultant is specialized in environment and can take the aid of the industry specific

technical expert, thus, should be accredited for all items/ industries/ sectors.

(b) Consultant categorization into Category A & B- all consultants should be equally

accredited. The categorization by EIA Notification is on the basis of production

capacity, which does not diminish or increase the impact if the project is small or

large. The knowledge requirement for both small and large project will be same. A

category B project, falling within 10 km of the general conditions, becomes Category

―A‖ and suddenly, due to that, a previously competent consultant is no more

competent to prepare that report. By demarcating the consultants into Category A and

B, is the NABET aiming at providing inferior quality reports to the SEACs? The EIA

quality has to be same for both EAC, MOEF and SEACs of state so there should not

be any A or B

(c) Construction sector not requires to be treated in same manner since neither same

number of experts are required for a construction project under B2 category nor an

EIA firm is required. For years, project planners and architects have been defending

the construction sector projects with the assistance of a free lance environmental

consultant and MOEF/ NABL accredited laboratory. Thus, item 8(a) and 8(b), both

require to be exempted from the necessity of an EIA consultant. A detailed note on

the ridiculousness of the scheme is given in Annexure 2.

(d) Corruption - Technical Advisor of NABET is the connecting link between assessors,

committee members and consultant organizations to collect the bribe. He sits at

NABET secretariat and choose assessors based on the bribe. Further, he himself

attend many office assessments and selected various organizations with no

infrastructure. Further, One of the assessor Dr. Sharat Chandra, Assessor had asked

for a bribe during assessment from to one of the Consultancy Organization for

providing accreditation.


Page | 30

Kindly find below certain recent examples of similar kind;

(e) As per NABET RA MoM dated 28/03/2014 for one of the organization, a person

becomes 'A' category EIA coordinator for 5 sectors and 'A' category functional area

expert for 3 areas. Can you believe this?

(f) As per NABET SA MoM dated 02/04/2014 for one of the organization, a person have

been approved as A category FAE for AP, WP and AQ and the same person is also

approved as A category FAE for 'Socio-economics'. What does this mean? As per the

information, technical advisor of NABET was attended for office assessment.

Without bring it to the knowledge of other consultants regarding educational

qualification, NABET approved the above expert for irrational functional areas. This

is the best example where NABET is directly involving in collection of bribe.

(g) As per the recent NABET MOMs, many EIA coordinators have been demoted even if

they have not carried out any projects? How does the knowledge of an expert come

down year to year?

(h) For most of the organizations, assessors targeted the experts personally if they cross

question.

The scheme requires that for any organisation to get accreditation in a sector, say,

―Building & large construction projects including shopping malls, multiplexes,

commercial complexes, housing estates, hospitals, institutions‖, the organization has to

have an EIA coordinator (EC) from that sector and 12 types of function area experts

(FAE’s) as follows:

1. Land Use

2. Air Pollution Monitoring, prevention & control

3. Meteorology, Air Quality Modelling & Prediction

4. Water Pollution Monitoring, Prevention & control

5. Ecology & Biodiversity

6. Noise & Vibration

7. Socio-economic aspects

8. Hydrology, Ground Water & Water conservation


Page | 31

9. Geology

10. Soil Conservation

11. Risk & Hazards Management

12. Solid & Hazardous Waste Management (including municipal solid wastes)

Out of the above full time employees (i.e. in house experts) need to be following;

1. Air Pollution Monitoring, prevention & control

2. Water Pollution Monitoring, Prevention & control

3. Solid & Hazardous Waste Management (including municipal solid wastes)

4. Ecology & Biodiversity

5. Socio-economic aspects

FAE 4 & 5 above has the liberty that the expert can be empanelled but supported by

an in-house Associate FAE. Beyond this, it is stated in the Explanatory notes dated

19.10.2012 that However, availability of the following 8 functional areas will be

absolutely essential, based on the result of SA or assessment of fresh application, as

applicable, for consideration of expansion/modification in scope of accreditation‖, which

leaves massive scope for ambiguity. If 8 are essential then why twelve have been listed?

Does it mean that organisations with 8 FAEs are as competent as those with 12?

Looking at a Building & large construction project, such as a Mall, which come up is

urban areas which everyone is familiar with, based on basic common sense alone, one

can realize that unlike an industrial project, the Mall does not have any major impact on

air pollution which would require any major measures for prevention and control. Thus,

for an organization which is applying for accreditation in Building & Large construction,

there is no requirement for a full time FAE in ―Air Pollution Monitoring, prevention &

control‖. Furthermore, upto 22.08.2013, only those building construction projects with

built up area more than 1,50,000 sq.m. required preparation of an EIA report. Such

projects were far less in number than the ones within the 20,000-1,50,000 sq.m. bracket,

who’s environmental clearance was awarded on the appraisal of Form-1, Form 1A and

Conceptual Plan. The input into Form1, 1A & Conceptual plan is provided mostly by the

Architect and planners of the project and any environmental monitoring or measurements

can be got done by any accredited laboratory. The assistance of a free lance


Page | 32

environmental consultant familiar with the environmental clearance process, for expertise

on finer points is more than sufficient. Thus, there is actually no need for an

environmental consultant to hire or empanel all 12 experts for such projects, when EIAs

don’t have to be prepared for the same. The MOEF, by virtue of its OM and the scheme

by virtue of its structure, gives no liberty to Building & large construction projects in

permitting applications or presentations to EAC/ SEACs by the project proponent or the

architects/ planners or to freelance Environmental consultants. For such projects, earlier

there was no need to hire EIA consulting organizations but now, whether needed or not,

they have to be hired. This will be clearer by the following table 3 :


Page | 33

Sl.

No.

Functional Area Pre-requisite

of the scheme

Relevance to a Building & large construction project Remark

1 Land Use Essential - In-

house or

empanelled

Construction can take place only on designated land use as

per Master Plan, already prepared by development

authorities.

In case, the land use in 10 km radius (study area) has to be

studied, there are specialized remote sensing agencies who

interpret the satellite image and provide land use through

computer softwares at reasonable cost

Not required as

out sourcing is

economical.

2 Air Pollution Monitoring,

prevention & control

Essential - In-

house In a project like a Mall, the air pollution can be from a

diesel generator set (DG set) for back up power. The norms

on DG sets are already prescribed by CPCB and there are no

additional pollution control measures except specifying the

minimum height of its stack (chimney) through

Notifications. All environmental consultants are aware of

these notifications.

Separate in-

house expert

not required

3 Meteorology, Air Quality

Modelling & Prediction

Essential - In-

house or

empanelled

Meteorology is measured by a laboratory

Air Quality Modelling & Prediction is carried out by a

software and there are agencies available who can conduct

this at a reasonable cost

Not required as

out sourcing is

economical.

4 Water Pollution

Monitoring, Prevention

& control

Essential - In-

house The Buildings & construction projects have water

consumption, waste water generation, treatment, recycling

& reuse and thus expertise is essential

Required

5 Ecology & Biodiversity Essential - In-

house or

empanelled

supported by

in-house

Associate FAE

Buildings & construction projects have landscape

consultants who in turn have horticulturists on board. They

chose the species of trees to be planted, where, at which

density and when. Thus, there is no need to have full time

in-house expert for this

There are complete lists of proposed plants available from

Central Pollution Control Board for greenbelts and available

Not required as

input available

from landscape

consultant


Page | 34

Sl.

No.


of the scheme


in public domain

6 Noise & Vibration The noise and vibrations will be from DG sets for which

standard control measures like enclosures & vibrations

dampners are available

Not required

7 Socio-economic aspects Essential - In-

house or

empanelled

supported by

in-house

Associate FAE

The Buildings & construction projects are coming in cities

and towns where there is no interference of the project

proponent in the socio-economics of the area. The

assessment of impact on socio-economics of the area due to

the project also will hold no meaning in such projects.

Reason being, if a Mall is coming up in Saket, the

employees can be from anywhere in Delhi- as far as

Jahangirpuri or even outside Delhi i.e. from NCR. The same

holds true for visitors, which again can be from around the

area of the mall, from further corners or Delhi & NCR or

even outside Delhi.

Not needed as

the impact

assessment

itself will be

purely

theoretical

8 Hydrology, Ground

Water & Water

conservation

This is an important aspect as the Buildings & construction

projects may be drawing ground water and water table may

be declining. Permission for ground water withdrawal is to

be obtained after due study from Central Ground Water

Authority (CGWA) for which a Hydrogeological Consultant

can be hired

Water conservation is essential and so is rain water

harvesting. The water conservation measures are available

to the architect in the form of what type of taps and flushing

systems to be used while an expert in rain water harvesting

will design the rain water harvesting system

Required,

although can be

outsourced. Not

even put as

―essential‖ by

NABET

9 Geology Not applicable Not required

10 Soil Conservation Whatever little soil is excavated is reused for landscaping Not required


Page | 35

Sl.

No.


of the scheme


and the landscape consultant oversees this

11 Risk & Hazards

Management

Essential - In-

house or

empanelled

Emergency management plans are essential for approval of

the building plans from the Fire Department. These are

prepared by the consultant assisting in obtaining Fire

clearance

Not required

12 Solid & Hazardous

Waste Management

(including municipal

solid wastes)

Essential - In-

house This is a major aspect and requires calculation of estimated

waste likely to be generated, the segregation, treatment and

disposal

Since in most cities, the system of treatment and disposal is

already in place by the municipality or development

authority, there is little scope for value addition beyond the

plot boundary with respect to this aspect

Required


Page | 36

Furthermore, the Number of such projects that can be carried out by an organization has

been restricted to 15 nos. per EIA Coordinator. Such consultations fetch an organization

approximately Rs. 2 lakh per project, on an average. Thus, an organization with EC

accredited for Building & large construction projects can have an income of Rs. 30 lakhs, in

which it is not possible to sustain 12 FAE’s, as required by the scheme. The in-house FAEs

are charging around Rs. 6 lakhs/ annum and five such experts are compulsory. In addition,

there has to be associate FAEs (juniors) and other support staff. Money has to be spent on

environmental monitoring by hiring a laboratory and site visits, etc. Logically, the consultant

organization should increase the rates to cover costs but that means more than doubling of the

cost to client in an already over competitive market, which has gotten destabilized due to the

pre-requisites of the scheme. In an economy which is already showing negative industrial

growth, such additional costs and red-tapism is hampering the growth and a loss to the nation.


Page | 37

4. Constructive Suggestions

1. There should not be a system of compulsory accreditation at all. Instead, as in the case of CAs,

CS, lawyers, architects, there should be a system of each environmental professional to be

registered with MOEF. Thus, every capable individual can exercise their right to practice.

Furthermore, from the data bank, the competent experts can collectively get together and prepare

a report, without having to join an organization for the purpose of accreditation.

2. There is no need for accreditation scheme as all reports and consultants are being appraised by

SEACs/ SEIAAs and EACs across the country and their quality can be tested and reported to the

MOEF by them

3. If at all, accreditation is considered as pre-requisite by MOEF, then it should follow the same

protocol as across the world. All over the world, standard quality management, environment

management and safety systems are implemented for laboratories, industries and service

providers which follow the ISO or the National Standards adapted by each country. Any agency

desirous of such accreditations such as ISO 9001, 14001, OHSAS, 17025 etc does so voluntarily

and has the option of various accreditation agencies to chose from. Such accreditations give

advantages to the company in various forms. Similarly, MOEF should come up with a voluntary

scheme and not grant sou-moto accreditation power to an inexperienced and profit-making

agency like QCI/ NABET. In absence of any control by MOEF over QCI/ NABET and absence

of option of any other accreditation agency, this is creating a monopoly and against business

ethics.

4. The Ministry should prepare proper guidelines, rules and regulations, framework for the process

of accreditation of Environmental Consultants.

5. The accreditation scheme should be made in discussion with experts from different institutions

like universities, Technical Institutes, NGOs, Industries, Environmental Consultants etc.

6. The accreditation scheme should be finalized by the Ministry which will be reviewed after a

minimum period of 3 years.

7. Creation of appellate authority chaired by Retired High Court Judge and supported by Technical

Experts to submit appeal by aggrieved consultants.

8. Appointment of non bureaucratic public representatives in the accreditation scheme.

9. Ex MOEF/SPCBs/CPCB/ Dept. of Environment Officials/ EAC/SEAC Members will not be part

of accreditation process.

10. The notification should cover the criteria for accreditation of accreditation agencies/ bodies

specifying tenure, age, qualification and experience.


Page | 38

11. The notification should be finalized only after multiple accreditation agencies are available

12. The time taken by the accreditation body/ agency for application processing should not be more

than 1 month.

13. Transparency and answerability by the assessors/ accreditation committee/ surveillance

committee has to be there

14. No interference by the committee in recruitment done by organizations unless the person

concerned does not have the requisite qualifications or experience

15. The MOEF should constitute a body for accreditation in line with how it is done under the

section 12 of EPA for laboratories

16. There should be no fees, which only can ensure no corruption

17. There should not be any restriction on the number of sectors or number of EIAs, which is direct

violation of the fundamental right

18. All the consultants shall be given minimum three years Time getting accreditation after issuances

of final notification.


Page | 39

5. Conclusion

Ayn Rand said ――When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by

compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from

men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods,

but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your

laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption

being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is

doomed.‖

MOEF should not facilitate in this doom.

Documents

Final Red Book