What is Changing in Project Approvals?
The central government has been refining the framework that decides which projects it appraises and which are left to state-level bodies. A key lever in this process is the 'scale' threshold. For instance, the Environment Ministry recently proposed doubling
the appraisal threshold for non-coal mining projects from 250 hectares to 500 hectares at the state level. Projects below this new, larger size can be cleared by State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA), while those above it are escalated to the Centre's Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC). This isn't just about mining; similar logic applies to infrastructure, where project cost can trigger different levels of scrutiny. In Maharashtra, for example, a new rule requires a high-powered committee to vet any new project if its cost, combined with ongoing works, exceeds twice the department's average annual expenditure over the last three years.
The Official Rationale: Efficiency and Decentralisation
The government's stated aim for these changes is to streamline approvals, boost the ease of doing business, and empower state authorities. The Environment Ministry, in its proposal, noted that state-level committees have gained significant experience over the last two decades and possess an equal level of expertise as central committees. By raising the thresholds, the idea is to decentralise the process for a larger number of projects, allowing state bodies that are closer to the ground to make the call. This, in theory, reduces the burden on central agencies, speeds up clearances for mid-sized projects, and allows developers to deal with local rather than national authorities. This push is part of a broader effort to simplify regulations, which has seen India's rank in the World Bank's Doing Business report improve significantly.
Concerns Over Diluted Scrutiny
However, these moves have raised concerns among environmentalists and policy experts. Critics worry that simply delegating more projects to state authorities without strengthening their resources could lead to rubber-stamp approvals. The fear is that state bodies may face greater local pressure to approve projects quickly, potentially overlooking significant environmental or social impacts. There is also the issue of cumulative impact. A series of smaller projects, each falling just below the central appraisal threshold, could collectively cause significant environmental damage without ever being subject to the more rigorous scrutiny of a central authority. This comes at a time when the Supreme Court has strongly re-emphasised that prior environmental clearance is mandatory and non-negotiable, putting an end to the past practice of building first and seeking regularisation later.
The Centralisation vs. Devolution Debate
This policy touches upon a core tension in Indian federalism: the balance of power between the Centre and the states. While raising thresholds for state-level clearance is framed as decentralisation, other moves suggest a trend towards centralisation. For example, the Home Ministry recently issued guidelines for renewable energy projects near India's borders, creating sensitive zones where all projects require security clearance from the central government, regardless of size. This indicates a willingness to use national security or other strategic reasons to centralise control. State governments often depend on central funds and approvals for major projects, creating a complex dynamic where they seek both greater autonomy and central support. Therefore, while states may welcome the power to approve more local projects, they remain wary of the Centre's overarching authority on larger or strategically important ventures.
