The document is a letter responding to India's draft EIA Notification 2020. It summarizes the following key points: 1. The All India Union of Forest Working People rejects the draft EIA Notification 2020 in its entirety and demands its complete withdrawal. 2. The draft was released during a national lockdown without proper consultation of key stakeholders such as forest communities who will be most impacted. 3. Weakening environmental protections in the draft goes against preventing future pandemics by protecting nature and could lead to increased pollution and ecological destruction. 4. Changes in the draft reduce public consultation and consent requirements for projects, weakening environmental regulation and democracy.

1. To,
Shri Prakash Javdekar
Hon’ble Minister for Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110003
CC: Mr Rameshwar Prasad Gupta
Secretary (EF&CC)
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110003
Emails to: eia2020-moefcc@gov HYPERLINK "mailto:eia2020-moefcc@gov.in".
HYPERLINK "mailto:eia2020-moefcc@gov.in"in
Subject: Response to the draft EIA Notification, 2020
Sir,
The All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) is responding to the draft
notification concerning EIA Notification 2006 vide Draft S.O. 1199(E) published on 23rd
March
2020. We would like to bring to your attention that the AIUFWP demands a complete
withdrawal of draft Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2020 ( henceforth
referred to as “Draft EIA2020”) as we reject it in its entirety. We, as a union that represents
communities who live and depend on the forest, find that the draft EIA 2020 should be
withdrawn because of the reasons cited below
• Timing of draft: Release of draft notification for public scrutiny a day after a nation-
wide lockdown was issued and a humanitarian crisis unfolded is fundamentally against
public interest.
1. Inaccessibility to key stakeholder: Draft notification was issued only in English and
Hindi and was published online. The workers we represent at AIUFWP do not have access to
the languages nor the internet as a medium of communication. As the weakening of provisions
under EIA 2006 is now now prescribed by this new draft, we find that forest dwelling
communities are one of the most vulnerable stakeholders who will be affected by these changes
and hence their opinion on this should be sought.
1. COVID pandemic calls for strengthening our ecological security not destroying it:
On a number of counts mentioned in this draft regulations that we placed to protect our

2. ecological heritage has been weakened considerably. Experts have highlighted that a virus like
COVID-19 is due to tremendous ecological damage. In an article published in the Guardian
“Pandemics such as coronavirus are the result of humanity’s destruction of nature, according
to leaders at the UN, WHO and WWF International, and the world has been ignoring this stark
reality for decades.The illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade as well as the devastation of
forests and other wild places were still the driving forces behind the increasing number of
diseases leaping from wildlife to humans, the leaders told the Guardian.”In this light, the
provisions made for easy ecological destruction by industry stands to deepen the crisis and
produce a similar catastrophe in the future
1. Draft EIA 2020 gives industries, corporations, and public projects licence to loot
our “Jal, Jungle and Jameen” “Water, Forest, and Land” which is antithetical to the idea
of national interest : We find that a number of aspects of EIA has been modified to make it
easier for construct and operate all kinds of projects, without proper assessment and procedures
that stand to cause irreversible damage to people and places. We highlight the following
changes made to be problematic:
a. Post-factor clearance mechanism: giving projects permission to begin construction and
seeking EIA clearance after is pointless, as the damage that an EIA might assess and mitigate
has already been carried out.
• New entry of projects into “Industrial Estate” category: The new list of
inclusions under “Industrial Estates” include - Coastal Economic Zones, Special
Investment Region, Petroleum, Chemicals and Petrochemical Investment
Regions, Hydropower and Renewables. This is an issue of grave concern as we
have seen the manner in which these projects have infringed on the right of
natural resource based lives and livelihoods.
• Encouraging pollution: By weakening powers of regulatory bodies and
centralising control from state authorities and allowing projects to expand by
50% to procure ““No Increase in Pollution Load Certificate” we will see an
exponential increase in pollution levels.
Limiting public consent is stifling democracy: From the manner in which this draft EIA
2020 was released to the changes it proposes within, there are a number of changes
made to avoid public scrutiny and omit public consultation and public hearings. We
find this extremely problematic and distressing. The process has been highly opaque
and exclusive and omits the concerns of millions of people this change in notification
stands to affect. We therefore call for more open and participatory approaches. These
instances of public omissions in procedures are:
i. Exemption given to Category A and B1 projects seeking an expansion or modernisation
with a capacity increase of upto 50%, from requiring a public consultation. Additionally it
exempts category B2 from undertaking a public consultation process in the 2020 draft.
ii. In the EIA 2006 notification, categorisation and recategorization of projects were done
through amendments which were open to public comments within a stipulated time frame. This
has been bypassed through a new ‘Technical Expert Committee’ which is to replace public
consultative processes like public hearings, making this notification undemocratic in nature.
iii. The draft EIA 2020 mentions that the Expert Appraisal Committee can call for public
consultation through ‘any other appropriate mode. This is vague.

3. iv. The draft EIA put out only online, decision making through zoom calls, and the use of
the English or Hindi as exclusive languages. Forest dwellers and forest dependent communities
across the country speak diverse languages and dialects and often have lower literacy rates and
socio-economic capital to access the internet. The release of this draft therefore makes it
extremely inaccessible for the most important stakeholder that this draft EIA 2020 stands to
affect.
1. Not only is public scrutiny and the public consultative process avoided, there is an
objectionable pattern that ignores “Project Affected Communities.” There is a need to look
at the draft EIA 2020 in conjunction with other legal provisions in the country in relation to the
forest, land, and rights :
a. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, (LARR 2013) - This was a historic act of Parliament that aimed to
correct the historic injustices that were born from the colonial era law the Land Acquisition
Act of 1894. The 2013 amendment was an important step for millions of project affected
communities, especially those who might be impacted in the future. However, even the 2013
amendment gave free pass to government projects. In 2014 this government passed an
ordinance which exempted 5 types of projects from ‘Social Impact Assessment’ and public
consent. This together with the change proposed in the EIA is objectionable.
• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA 2006).This amendment violates basic tenets of
the Forest Rights Act ,2006 and also the Wildlife Protection act ,1972. As per
the provision of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, no project can be sanctioned
without the consent of Gram sabhas.. The attack on this legislation in recent
years with threats of eviction, together with this draft EIA is clearly seen by us
as anti-people.
1. In violation of the constitutional norms and procedures as well as antithetical to
the founding principles of the MoEFCC:
a. In 263rd
Report on the “High Level Committee Report to Review various Acts
administered by Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change” through extensive public
consultation recommended the following to the MoEFCC - “the Ministry of Environment,
Forest & Climate Change, instead of proceeding with the implementation of the
recommendations containedinHigh Level Committee Report,should give due consideration
to the views/opinion and objections raised by stakeholders including environmental experts.
Some of the essential recommendations of the HLC have been doubted and would result in
an unacceptable dilution of the existing legal and policy architecture established to protect
our environment. Further, an impression should not be created that a Committee whose
constitution and jurisdiction are itself in doubt, has been used to tinker with the established
law and policy.”
• In 324th Report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and
Technology, Environment and Forests, on the “Status of Forests in India”.
Taking into consideration the Draft National Forest Policy 2018, it reminded
the Ministry of its critical role in ensuring its environmental monitoring and
regulatory powers were employed deeply democratically and with necessary
prudence so that it could advance environmental conservation, ecological

4. security and social justice. It has said the following (section numbers below
refer to the numbering in the original report):
9.5 Land use transformation along with industrialization, rapid
urbanization and mining is causing fast depletion of plant and animal
life even within protected areas. Due to all these factors, we are also
witnessing increasing incidents of man -animal conflicts. In recent
times, we have witnessed numerous incidents of animals straying into
human habitations due to fragmentation of their habitats and rapid
and unplanned urbanization. This is now a serious cause of concern
because man-animal conflict can have a detrimental effect on
conservation efforts, as such conflicts can undermine respect for
animal life that has hitherto defined Indian cultural attitudes to
animal life.
9.6 The Committee notes with serious concern that wildlife is
increasinglycoming under pressure in all parts of the country.Reports
of man- animal conflict threaten to tear apart the respect for wildlife
that has traditionally been the hallmark of conservation in India. The
Committee feels that community led solutions must be explored in
order to prevent fragmentation of habitats of wild lives besides policy
interventions of the Ministry.
9.7 The Committee is also of the view that wildlife protection requires
concerted efforts and that growing incidents of poaching,
encroachment and habitat destruction should be tackled in an
effective manner and it also requires implementation of various Acts
such as Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 etc. and statutes in letter and
spirit.”
Disturbed by the lack of coordinated and harmonious decision making in
formulation laws and policies by the Ministry, the Committee also stated as
follows:
“The Committee was informed that during the formulation stage of
DNFP, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs wasn’t consulted. It was also
informed that many provisions of the FRA, 2006 and PESA, 1996 have
been diluted or disregarded. Therefore, theCommitteerecommends that
Ministry of Tribal Affairs must be taken on board for wider consultation
along with State Governments/ Local Bodies/ NGOs/ Civil society
members before finalizing the Draft Forest Policy and notifying it.
Further, adequate safeguards must be taken for the protection of
vulnerable forest communities such as tribals and other communities
who are dependent on the forest for their sustenance and survival.”
1. Validity of clearance extended for various projects: There is a 20 year increase in
the validity of EC for mining projects, 5 years for river valley, 8 years for irrigation and nuclear
projects and 3 years for all other projects is a significant revision. This is alarming for a number
of reasons, for projects through their operations must be closely monitored.

5. Demands by AIUFWP:
• Reinstate community consultative processes - In the last few years we have observed
that from LARR to FRA and EIA community consultative processes are being
systematically dismantled for the sake of a growth that will benefit only a few and leave
behind the majority in distress.This mode of legislation and clearance for development
projects without public consent is anti-democratic. As a union of forest working people,
we demand for implementation of democratic routes to legislation. In this regard, we
demand for the effective implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 in all forest
areas without any interference from the Forest Department. MoEFCC must give support
to Gram sabhas and Forest Rights committee (FRC) for its effective implementation.
1. Follow the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee cited
above in point 6a and 6b.
1. Withdraw the draft EIA 2020 - We demand that the draft EIA 2020 be withdrawn in
its entirety.