REHDA'S Response To The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment's Proposal to Amend The Environmental Quality Act, 1974

• REHDA supports the Government's call for tougher action to be taken against all parties including developers who knowingly flout environmental laws and to close up loopholes in the laws to prevent developers splitting their development into smaller parcels to avoid EIA submissions.
• We fully understand that blatant damages to the environment are irreversible and that "prevention is better than cure" in the interest of our society today and in the future and in order to achieve sustainable development in the long term.
• We urge the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment to reconsider its proposal for a blanket EIA Report irrespective of size of the development. It is an overreaction. More bureaucratic processes, financial costs and other additional costs will be incurred. Such across the board approach would defeat the Government's efforts in wanting to improve its public delivery system. REHDA maintains that only large developments of 50 hectares or more and ALL environmentally sensitive areas irrespective of size should be subject to EIA requirements. In practice, developments in developed areas with proper infrastructure OR in non-sensitive areas such as on flat land with good soil conditions, etc. do not contribute to environmental damage.
• REHDA is of the view that if need be the existing laws and regulations should be tightened further including the Environmental Quality Act, 1974 as damaging the environment is a serious issue and REHDA hopes that action is taken against ALL defaulting parties. Putting the blame solely on developers alone for all environmental disasters is grossly unfair and unreasonable. Checks and balances in our system by professional consultants and authorities in the process of design submissions, approvals with relevant conditions and strict enforcement and monitoring during construction could have prevented such disasters even if the developer in question allegedly attempts to shortchange the house buyers.
• Acts of God cannot be understated or ignored in environmental disasters in view of global climatic changes. If all parties have taken responsible steps as required in the EIA Report, then surely mandatory jail sentence cannot apply.