The need for rapid economic growth across South Asia is increasingly coming into conflict with environmental reality. An interesting example is India, the largest economy in the region. Mega infrastructure projects like river-linking, hydropower dams, highways and industrial corridors are being pushed as engines of growth, to address water scarcity, improve connectivity and raise energy production. However, these goals notwithstanding, there is growing concern among communities, environmental professionals, and legislators about the long-term ecological and socioeconomic effects of these projects. The problem is no longer limited to environmental degradation; it is how decisions are made, evaluated, and implemented.
The recent backlash against the Ken-Betwa river linking project and protests in Uttarakhand against infrastructure expansion are indicators of wider concerns about environmental governance in India. At the heart of all of these concerns is the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) framework, a legislative process designed to balance development and environmental sustainability. But it is under attack.
The EIA was first introduced in India by the 1994 Notification and later strengthened by the 2006 Framework. The goal is to assess the social and environmental effects of projects before they are approved, to aid in better decision-making. The proponents of projects have to assess ecological risks, biodiversity impacts, pollution levels, displacement issues and mitigation options. Public consultations should also take account of the views of the local population. The framework would aim to ensure development projects are environmentally responsible, socially acceptable and commercially viable.
But various investigations and court judgments have shown that there are recurring flaws. These include inconsistencies in baseline data, reliance on consultant-led reporting, limited cumulative impact analysis and inadequate post-clearance monitoring. Environmental studies are frequently produced on very short time frames, raising questions about the thoroughness and integrity of the studies. While public hearings are held properly, they are consistently criticised for not recording community concerns effectively. Language barriers, lack of access to information and procedural barriers can all inhibit effective participation. The result is that the EIA process can sometimes seem more procedural than substantive. The restrictions give rise to serious concerns about whether the EIA framework acts as a meaningful environmental safeguard or as a mere statutory formality.
The Ken-Betwa River Linking Project has been called a game-changer project to solve water scarcity in the drought-prone Bundelkhand region. It provides irrigation benefits, safe drinking water and hydropower generation that can improve livelihood and regional development. The idea, however, has also stirred heated discussion. The proposed Daudhan dam poses a threat of loss of biodiversity and habitat fragmentation and is likely to impact parts of the Panna Tiger Reserve. The diversion of forest area and the likely displacement of local people have drawn increasing criticism. Experts have questioned whether environmental assessments are considering downstream biological impacts and seasonal river flows and other water management options such as watershed development and groundwater recharge.
Local stakeholders also expressed concern about how their input would factor into decision-making. Discussions have taken place, but doubts remain over effectiveness and inclusiveness. Ken-Betwa is an instance of the more difficult challenge of reconciling developmental aspirations with ecological sustainability in ecologically stressed areas.
The Himalayan region is known for its ecological sensitivity and Uttarakhand is a case in point where the challenge of aligning infrastructural development with environmental stability has been apparent. The state has witnessed large scale construction of roads, development of hydropower projects and expansion of urban areas in the last ten years to enhance connectivity and promote tourism. However, such changes are concomitant with increasing landslides, flash floods and land subsidence. The Joshimath sinking and the disturbances during the Char Dham road project have shown how multiple interventions have an accumulative impact on a fragile ecosystem. Experts say that taking projects in isolation means ignoring the larger environmental toll on mountain ecosystems.
The vulnerability to natural calamities has been increased by the geological fragility, the deforestation, the destabilization of slopes and the uncontrolled construction. Public demonstrations are an indication that local populations in the region are becoming more aware of these concerns and the need for more thorough planning.
Uttarakhand’s experience demonstrates the need for a landscape level approach to environmental governance, especially in environmentally fragile areas.
Environmental assessment is made more difficult by climate change. The climate in South Asia is highly vulnerable and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. Infrastructure planning in the Himalayas needs to be forward looking to cope with changes in precipitation patterns, glacial retreat and greater risks of landslides. Likewise, changes in rainfall patterns and temperature variations are affecting water availability and ecosystem dynamics in India’s river basins. Therefore climate projections must be integrated into environmental decision-making. This includes identifying long-term hazards, including adaptive design solutions, and ensuring projects contribute to climate resilience.
Local communities are essential to environmental governance. Local people often have detailed knowledge of ecosystems, seasonal changes and environmental hazards that may contribute to better quality of assessment. Effective participation in the EIA process is about more than just formal consultation. This means getting knowledge out to more people, breaking down language barriers and opening up space for real conversation. Procedural consultations can be viewed as substantive, and can lead to mistrust and conflict. The lessons from Ken-Betwa and Uttarakhand are that with better public engagement, more equitable and sustainable development outcomes might be achieved.
India’s development trajectory reflects a wider regional dilemma: how to reconcile economic growth with environmental sustainability and social equity. Infrastructure development is still required, but has to be done in a way that respects environmental limits and protects community interests. The EIA framework remains a useful tool in this process. Its effectiveness can be improved through improving scientific quality, transparency, including cumulative and climate sensitive evaluations and increasing public participation. Institutional capacity, independent review processes and robust monitoring systems are all essential. The Ken-Betwa debates, and the infrastructure expansion in Uttarakhand, underline the need to adopt a more comprehensive strategy, one that recognises the interdependence of ecosystems, communities and economies.
Finally, sustainable development will be measured not just by the infrastructure built, but by the ability to protect the natural systems on which long-term prosperity depends. More equitable and inclusive environmental governance can contribute to resilient and equitable development.
Anusreeta Dutta is a columnist, political ecology researcher with prior experience as an ESG analyst.
Zahid Sultan is an Independent Researcher having a PhD in Political Science
Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth