A stellar fallacy: on the hasty estimation of environmental costs

a Union Environment Ministry’s move to implement ‘Star-Rating System’ Controversy has erupted after one of its official releases became public. Under the scheme, state level environmental committees that evaluate industrial projects on their potential environmental risk will be incentivized with points for “transparency, efficiency and accountability”. The idea was made to facilitate the government’s wider commitment to ‘ease of doing business’ after the Union Cabinet meeting this month. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the cornerstone of ensuring that the ecological cost of infrastructure development is minimal. Potential projects above a certain size and with the potential to significantly alter the natural environment must first be approved by a State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) consisting of state officials and independent experts. Projects that are even bigger or involve forest land – Category A – should be approved by an expert committee set up by the Centre. SEIAA projects constitute a large number of projects for approval, including building and construction, small-scale mining, small-scale industry projects, and are considered ‘less polluting’.

The proposed star rating system is meant to “rank” and “encourage” states on how quickly and “efficiently” they can grant environmental clearances. It lays out seven criteria to rate SEIAAs on “Transparency, Efficiency and Accountability.” For example, on a scale of 7, a SEIAA gets more points for approved in less than 80 days compared to within 105 days and no points for more. A score of seven or more will be rated ‘Five Star’. However, a reading of the order gives an impression that the states, in search of more stars, would be logically prepared for expeditious clearing of projects rather than ensuring thorough evaluation. In response to the criticism, the environment ministry said the intention was not to expedite approvals but to expedite decision-making. Instead of sending back files for each question, all the objections should be compiled and addressed in one go, it argues. While quick decision-making benefits everyone, there are currently very few independent experts on state committees and decision-making is left to bureaucrats compared to environmental experts. Both the industrialists and the states benefit from the projects and hence, the tendency is always to address the environmental concerns. In many instances, site visits are important for understanding potential environmental challenges. Calculation of risks and benefits of industrial projects face to face Their environmental impact is considerable. The way forward is to take steps to instill confidence in the system and ensure that all states have competent experts who can conduct assessments without fear or favour. Empty ranking list is the least reasonable way to fetch it.