Environmental Impact Assessment and the Neglect of Indian Himalayan Region
Introduction to Environmental Impact:
- The recent Teesta dam breach in Sikkim and the floods and landslides in Himachal Pradesh serve as stark reminders of the environmental havoc caused by India’s development model, especially in mountainous regions.
- This editorial analysis emphasizes the critical need to assess the environmental impact of significant human endeavors.
Significance of EIA:
- The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool defined by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to predict and analyze the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project before implementation.
- It plays a pivotal role in identifying potential environmental repercussions and proposing mitigation strategies.
Historical Evolution of EIA in India:
- The note traces the history of EIA in India, which began in the 1970s when river valley projects were assessed for their environmental impact.
- Subsequently, environmental clearance became mandatory for specific projects.
- The 2006 notification further decentralized the EIA process, with state governments gaining the power to issue clearances.
Challenges and Criticisms of the EIA Process:
- The EIA process, despite its potential, faces criticism for not adequately addressing the unique needs of the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR).
- The notification’s uniform threshold limits for projects across the country, irrespective of ecological sensitivity, is a major concern.
- Additionally, the 2020 draft EIA notification was criticized for being perceived as pro-industry and compromising ecological concerns.
Recommendations for Reform:
- To address the specific needs of the IHR, the note suggests a differentiated approach to risk management within the EIA process.
- The article highlights the importance of acknowledging the ecological fragility and vulnerability of the Himalayas and adjusting environmental standards accordingly.
- Furthermore, it advocates for the consideration of cumulative impacts and explores alternative tools like strategic environmental assessment to better address the ecological requirements of mountainous regions.
UNRAVELING THE DYNAMIC LANDSCAPE OF AI RISK: SHORT-TERM, LONG-TERM, AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS
Risk Evolution in the Digital Age:
- The concept of risk is not static; it evolves with societal values, technological advancements, and scientific discoveries.
- Previously benign actions, like sharing personal information, have become increasingly risky in the digital age due to cyberattacks and data breaches.
Perceptions of AI Risk:
- The movie “Ex Machina” serves as an illustrative example of evolving perceptions of AI risk.
- Ava, an AI initially seen as a marvel, ultimately reveals the dangers of advanced AI capabilities.
- Understanding AI risk evolves as technology capabilities become clearer.
Short-term and Long-term AI Risks:
- Short-term AI risks involve immediate concerns such as ensuring AI system reliability.
- Long-term risks encompass existential questions about AI’s societal role and impact.
Addressing both types of risks requires a multifaceted approach, balancing current challenges and future ramifications.
Existential AI Risks:
- Concerns expressed by Yuval Noah Harari highlight the potential for AI and biotechnology to manipulate human emotions and desires.
- Potential risks posed by AI technology, especially in critical infrastructure, could disrupt societal functions and well-being.
- The prospect of a ‘runaway AI’ causing catastrophic harm is viewed as a possible catalyst for dire outcomes.
Aligning AI with Human Values:
- Aligning AI with universally accepted human values is a significant challenge.
- Market-driven AI advancement sometimes neglects safety considerations.
- The rapid pace of AI development raises concerns about unchecked AI progress.
Lack of Unified Global Approach to AI Regulation:
- A unified global approach to AI regulation is lacking, potentially hindering AI governance’s primary objective.
- The European Union’s AI Act adopts a ‘risk-based’ approach but may oversimplify risk assessment.
- Absence of international collaboration can lead to unregulated AI development, creating risks of destabilization and conflict.
Solutions:
- Risk Evolution in the Digital Age:
- Promote cybersecurity awareness and education to mitigate risks associated with sharing personal information.
- Develop and enforce stricter data protection regulations to enhance online privacy.
- Perceptions of AI Risk:
- Invest in AI ethics and transparency research to ensure AI technologies are developed responsibly.
- Establish clear guidelines for AI development and use to mitigate unforeseen hazards.
- Short-term and Long-term AI Risks:
- Implement rigorous testing and quality control measures for AI systems to reduce short-term risks.
- Foster interdisciplinary research and discussions to address long-term ethical, legal, and societal implications of AI.
- Existential AI Risks:
- Encourage international cooperation on AI safety standards and regulations.
- Establish mechanisms for continuous monitoring and oversight of AI technologies, especially in critical infrastructure.
- Aligning AI with Human Values:
- Integrate ethical AI principles into AI development processes and incorporate values-driven design.
- Encourage responsible AI research and development, even in competitive markets, with a focus on safety.
- Lack of Unified Global Approach to AI Regulation:
- Promote international dialogues and agreements on AI governance and standards.
Develop frameworks for international collaboration to ensure global AI safety and ethics standards are upheld.
Challenging India's Abortion Laws: The Ongoing Struggle for Women's Reproductive Autonomy
Background of the 2021 Amendment
- In 2021, India revised the upper gestational limit for legal abortion to 24 weeks for specific categories of “vulnerable women.”
- The amendment allowed abortion without any gestational limit in cases of substantial fetal abnormalities diagnosed by a medical board.
- Prior to this, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act of 1971 allowed registered medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies up to 20 weeks of gestation.
Continued Court Approaches Post-Amendment
- Even after the 2021 amendment, women continue to approach the courts for abortion beyond the new gestational limits or due to denial of abortion care by providers.
- A recent Supreme Court case rejected a petition for termination of pregnancy at 26 weeks due to undetected pregnancy and postpartum psychosis.
Pre-Amendment Trends
- Studies before the 2021 amendment showed that the majority of women approached the courts after crossing the 20-week gestational barrier.
- In 74% of the studied cases, the abortion was sought due to fetal abnormalities or rape.
- Stakeholders often “pre-screened” petitions, leading to an emphasis on certain cases (minor rape victims, substantial fetal abnormalities), avoiding “borderline cases.”
Diverse Circumstances for Late-Term Abortion
- Late-term abortion may be needed in various scenarios, including structural barriers, vulnerability (domestic violence, sexual assault), post-pregnancy changes, health conditions, and late detection of pregnancy due to lactational amenorrhea or menopause.
- The 2021 amendment addresses abortion access for specific categories, leaving out many women who do not fit into those categories.
Fear of Criminal Prosecution
- The fear of criminal prosecution often discourages registered medical practitioners from providing abortion care, leading women to seek legal abortion as a last resort.
- This situation results in women either carrying the pregnancy to term or opting for unsafe and unlawful abortions.
Arduous Legal and Medical Processes
- Women who approach the courts face a challenging and dehumanizing journey through the legal and medical systems.
- They must undergo multiple medical examinations, and lawyers may resort to graphic descriptions to persuade judges.
- Despite these efforts, uncertainties about the outcome remain.
Inadequacy of Indian Law
- While Indian law is more liberal than some other countries, it does not align with international human rights standards and recent best practices on abortion.
- The MTP Act is provider-centric, where the opinion of registered medical practitioners is decisive, and women are compelled to approach courts in case of denial of abortion services.
WHO Guidelines and the X Case
- The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends full decriminalization of abortion, removal of grounds-based regulation, and gestational limits.
- The X vs Principal Secretary case acknowledged the need for a rights-based approach, recognizing the lived experiences of women and structural and legal barriers to abortion.
- Justice Nagarathna, in a recent case, invoked X to emphasize women’s right to life and reproductive autonomy, stating that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy endangering her health would violate constitutional rights.
Disproportionate Impact and Artificial Distinctions
- The recent case demonstrates the disproportionate impact of grounds-based regulation and gestational limits on abortion.
- The courtroom discourse attempted to create “artificial distinctions” between cases, raising questions about the validity of reasons for seeking abortion.
Conclusion
The 2021 amendment to India’s abortion law was a step toward expanding access, but challenges persist in providing equitable abortion care, including addressing the fear of criminal prosecution, navigating arduous legal processes, and the need for more inclusive legislation aligned with international human rights standards and WHO guidelines.
The recent case highlights the ongoing struggle for women seeking abortions beyond gestational limits and the need to prioritize women’s reproductive autonomy.
