Green responsibility paper from projects looking for clearance

Companies will need to specify,among various things,a target for the reduction of waste,emission and effluence. The draft guidelines say companies should also,as far as possible,“purchase products and services that do the least damage to the environment on a life-cycle basis”.

“The implementation and monitoring of environmental performance have to be documented in a register. All milestones should be well supported by documentary evidence,” said a ministry official.

Companies will have to commit themselves to a budget for carrying out their environmental responsibility,after which expert panels will decide whether it is enough. For monitoring,the guidelines make it mandatory for the highest level of management to be responsible for the such objectives.

“We have prepared the draft guidelines after consultations with industry bodies like Ficci,Assocham and others. We have given 40 days to stakeholders for comments,” said the official.

‘Not so serious’ classification on hold

A move to categorise violations into “serious” and “not-so-serious” has hit a roadblock,with criticism from stakeholders and officials forcing the Environment Ministry to put it on hold.

The objective,ministry sources said,was to ensure a pragmatic approach in project evaluation so that “minor non-compliance” of norms would not come in the way of projects. The ministry usually gives a set of riders,or conditions to be fulfilled by project developers,along with the environment clearance they receive. But stakeholders and even officials within the ministry felt such a classification would trivialise environmental conccerns.

The recommendation had come from an expert committee headed by former Central Pollution control Board member secretary B Sengupta and including field staff of the ministry and pollution boards who have been inspecting projects.

Over months of deliberations,it classified various offences for various kinds of industry into the two groups. What invited criticism was that the “not-so serious” offences included some violations conventionally regarded as grave. For instance,if a mining project pollutes any river,or if its operations threaten the existence of endangered flora and fauna,it is considered “not so serious”. So is any failure by owners to monitor if their thermal power project is polluting the air.

“We are taking a relook at the whole thing. We will have to come up with a revised set of classifications and name them differently. The phrase ‘not-so-serious’ is not really acceptable,” said a senior official.