Environment ministry proposes exempting Common Municipal Solid Waste Management Facilities from environmental impact assessment process.
This move could undermine environmental planning by replacing proactive assessments with reactive compliance checks.
It can result in erosion of public participation and accountability, and potentially ignore high-risk components like landfills.
The draft notification from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), published on October 6, 2025, proposes a significant policy revision: The removal of item 7 (i) from the Schedule of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. This omission would exempt Common Municipal Solid Waste Management Facilities (CMSWMF) from the requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC).
The government's rationale is twofold: First, that CMSWMF are Environmental Essential Services (EES) crucial for pollution control, health protection, and promoting the "waste into wealth" concept by fostering a circular economy. Second, the argument is that these facilities are already subject to a robust, stringent, and comprehensive regulatory regime under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
The proposal noted that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has even recognised EES through a new "blue category" that offers incentives like extended validity for the Consent to Operate (CTO).
While the existing pollution control statutes provide necessary oversight, equating the consent mechanism (CTE / CTO) with a prior EIA overlooks a fundamental difference in regulatory function. The EIA, as an internationally recognised tool, is a structured, predictive method used to analyse, evaluate and mitigate the potential environmental effects of projects before they are implemented. It is focused on site suitability, design alternatives, and overall holistic impact on the ecosystem.
In contrast, the CTE / CTO mechanism enforced by the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) / PCCs is primarily a compliance-focused, post-commissioning tool that monitors actual emissions and discharges against prescribed standards.
Relying solely on the consent mechanism for new, large-scale waste processing infrastructure, as suggested in the draft, substitutes a proactive assessment with a reactive compliance check, a shift that fundamentally weakens environmental planning.
A significant casualty of this proposed exemption is the elimination of the mandatory public consultation and participation component inherent in the EIA process. The EIA framework, established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, ensures that project proponents, government agencies, and importantly, local communities and non-governmental organizations, all contribute to the scrutiny of a project. Public consultation is a crucial democratic safeguard that allows affected stakeholders to raise objections and provide input on environmental, social, and health impacts. By moving the regulatory requirement solely to the Consent mechanism, the process loses this layer of public scrutiny and transparency, effectively limiting the public's right to be informed and participate in decisions that directly affect their environment and well-being.
The Technical Guidance Manual for the Common Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility (CMSWMF), prepared by IL&FS and published in September 2010, is one of the sector-specific EIA documents available on the PARIVESH portal. PARIVESH is the national single-window integrated environmental management system developed by MoEFCC for handling clearances.
This Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) clarifies the conceptual and operational aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for all stakeholders. It outlines specific information related to developmental activities and details the roles and responsibilities within the 'Prior Environmental Clearance' procedure. This TGM is a robust technical document. Although it is a technical tool and does not override statutory law, it includes robust, indicative impacts. For CMSWMF facilities in the TGM, Table 4-2: Matrix of Impacts details have been provided. This matrix is a standard EIA tool used to systematically identify and summarize the potential environmental and social consequences of a proposed project, such as a CMSWM Facility that may include components like a landfill, composting, Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) production, biomethanation, and incineration
The scope of the proposed amendment is also problematic, as it appears to sweep aside a prior, more nuanced approach. The Expert Advisory Committee itself noted that the Central Government had previously clarified in 2017 that only CMSWMF that included a landfill site required prior EC. The current proposal removes Item 7(i) entirely.
This comprehensive exemption for all CMSWMF is particularly concerning because projects involving landfills carry inherent, long-term risks such as groundwater contamination and fugitive gas emissions, which necessitate the most rigorous predictive assessment before ground is broken.
While the encouragement of EES is a commendable objective, achieving this through a complete waiver of the prior EIA framework may inadvertently create a regulatory gap. The ultimate policy challenge is to find the right balance, ensuring the ease of establishing essential services does not come at the cost of essential environmental due diligence.
The core concern with omitting the EIA requirement and depending entirely on the consent mechanism is the implicit shift in regulatory philosophy. This move opens the path for the polluter pays principle to dominate, rather than adhering to the precautionary principle. When a facility is governed only by the consent mechanism, the only real option left after an environmental violation is imposing a fine or penalty, as planned environmental impact mitigation measures were never formally mandated or fully assessed pre-construction.
There are already several examples of CMSWMF violating environmental norms and subsequently being imposed hefty fines. For instance, the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation has been levied a fine of Rs 7.5 crore by the Pune Bench of the NGT in the case of Vinod Kumar Giridharilal vs State of Maharashtra & Ors for discharging untreated effluent from a municipal solid waste facility. Such a reliance on punitive measures over preventative planning has been criticised by the Supreme Court itself in cases dealing with ex-post facto environmental clearances, reminding that long-term development rests on foresight, not shortcuts. The intent offered harsh criticism of the central government, stating:
"Apart from the fact that the very concept of grant of ex-post facto EC is illegal, it is not possible to understand why the Central Government made efforts to protect those who committed illegality by not obtaining prior EC in terms of the EIA notification. As the EIA notification was eleven years old when the 2017 notification was issued, there was no equity in favour of those who committed such gross illegality of not obtaining prior EC. The persons who acted without prior EC were not illiterate persons. They were companies, real estate developers, public sector undertakings, mining industries, etc. They were the persons who knowingly committed illegality. We, therefore, make it clear that hereafter, the Central Government shall not come out with a new version of the 2017 notification which provides for the grant of ex-post facto EC in any manner."
Similarly, omitting the EIA provision can be viewed as facilitating an escape from the necessary prior approval. A better pathway would be to strengthen the EIA framework for EES, recognising that it is essential to build environmentally sound services. This can be achieved by utilizing and refining existing robust guidelines from the MoEFCC. Apart from regulatory change, the government could more effectively promote circularity and assist CMSWMF through other means, such as providing targeted incentives, technology support, and training.