EIA Jornal 4

8/12/2019 EIA Jornal 4

1/16

UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY

Mining in India has today emerged as

among the greatest threat to democracyand rule of law. New York Times

Columnist Thomas Friedman1 states that

wherever Government can raise most of their

revenues by simply drilling a hole in the ground

rather than tapping their peoples energy,

creativity and entrepreneurship, freedom tends to

be curtailed, education underfunded and human

development retarded.

Thomas Friedmans First law of

Petropolitics is pertinent. The law states thatin oil rich states, the price of oil and the

pace of freedom tend to move in opposite

direction. Higher the price of average global

crude oil more is the erosion in free speech,

free press, free and fair elections, freedom of

assembly, government transparency, judicial

independence, rule of law and formation of

independent non governmental

organizations. All these negative trends are

also reinforced by the fact that higher is the

rise in oil prices less the leaders care aboutwhat the world thinks or says about them.

They have greater domestic income to build

up domestic security forces, bribe

opponents, buy votes or public support and

resist international norms.

1Hot, Flat and Crowded, 2008

EIAJournalAnupdateonnews,viewsanddevelopments

inIndiasEIAprocessVol.IV,March,2010

Contents

1.Editorial:UnderminingDemocracy2.EIANews.33.NewsfromtheCourt.44.EIAfollowup: ThermalPowerPlantofEastCoastEnergyLtd.115.EIACritique:SesmicSurveybyOILIndiaLtd,Assam...14

Editors

Ritwick DuttaManoj MisraR. Sreedhar

Associate EditorShibani Ghosh


2/16

2Using a statistical analysis of 113 states between 1971 and 1977, Michel Levin Ross

(Does oil hinder democracy, World Politics, April 2001) a leading political

commentator, concluded that a states reliance of either crude or mineral exports tends

to make it less democratic; that the same effect is not caused by other types of export.

All the above is clearly visible in India today. It is impossible to have a society which is

dependent on exploitation of mineral resources whether in the form of oil, iron ore,bauxite and yet be transparent, democratic and accountable. The classic instance is in

the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where large scale illegal mining has

disrupted the democratic fabric of the society as well as compromised the rule of law.

So much so that the inter-state border between the two states has blurred resulting from

illegal mining.

Mining was permitted without any formal approval under the law (Mines and Minerals

Development and Regulation Act) since the Chief Minister of Karnataka took a view

that mining of iron ore is being done by farmers in order to make the land fit for

cultivation; and thereby an area of nearly 14,000 Sq Km (including thousands of

hectares of dense forest land) was dereserved for mining by the private companies; theState earned a revenue of Rs 16 per ton as royalty for Iron ore while the mining

companies earned nearly Rs 5000 per ton. The eye opening report of the Lok-ayukta of

Karnataka that provides a chilling account of how Ministers, Officials and Mining

mafia shamelessly collaborated to loot the states natural resources is gathering dust.

Worst is that all this is being justified in the name of states development (sic).

Any person who regards mining as development should read the above report.

Economists and politicians usually turn a blind eye when it comes to environmentalists

raising concern about mining. But can they ignore that fact that the Lokayukta of

Karnataka is a former Judge of the Supreme Court (Justice Santosh Hedge).

This issue of the ERC Journal extensively covers a number of EIA related recent

judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court. Many of these were delivered by the

bench comprising Justice A.P Shah and Justice Muralidhar. Justice A.P Shah who

retired the other day as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court will surely be missed

by all those fighting for justice whether in the sphere of human rights or for

environment protection.

RitwickDutta


3/16

3

EIANEWS

Project proponent withdraws from Thermal Power Plant project

Project site of Ind Bharat at Karwar, Karnataka

In a significant development and as a boost to the rapidly growing movement against

thermal power plants planned on the west coast of India the Hyderabad based Ind-

Bharath Power (Karwar) Limited has decided in December 2009, to shelve its 450-MW

coal-based thermal power plant project in Hanakon in Uttara Kannada district,

Karnataka. It is the victory for the people of Hanakon and surrounding villages, who

have been fighting against the thermal project for the last two years.

This was not without a fight both in the court and also outside. An appeal was filed by

local resident and lawyer Balakrishna Pai before the National Environment Appellate

Authority (NEAA). The NEAA stayed the project pending disposal of the matter. One

of the main grounds of Appeal against the project was that the EIA report failed to

disclose the presence of a Wildlife Sanctuary (Cotigao Sanctuary in Goa) and Anshi

Tiger reserve. The project proponent made the statement that there was no national

park and Sanctuary within a distance of 10 kms from the project site. Many other

serious deficiencies in the EIA report were pointed out. Notably the Forest Department

of Karnataka had vehemently opposed the project but its views were ignored during the

environment clearance process at the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

The movement against the project took a violent turn on with a number of womenand men including Sri Balakrishna Pai (the appellant before the NEAA) arrested and

kept in Jail for almost a week with over 30 other persons.

The threat to the site from the project is it seems still not fully over. This is because

despite the blatantly false information provided by the project proponent, the Ministry

(MOEF) is yet to revoke the environmental clearance (EC) given for the project. Thus


4/16

4unless revoked the project proponent can very well transfer the Environmental

Clearance to another proponent !

State supported and corporate led violence against those opposing the thermal power

plant at Karwar

Morotarium on Mining in Goa

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has in a welcome decision on 22 Feb 2010

imposed a moratorium on consideration of new mining proposal from the state of Goa

till the Mineral Policy for the State of Goa is finalized.

Excerptsfrom the Letter issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to theChairman,GoaStatePollutionControlBoard.


5/16

5

NEWSFROMTHECOURT

Environmental Clearance to be made public at the earliest directs Delhi HighCourt; MoEF yet to implement it

TheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourtofDelhipassedon14October2009anorder

directingtheMinistryofEnvironmentandForeststoensurethatanordergranting

environmental clearancehas tobeput in thepublicdomainat theearliest,and

definitelywithinaperiodoffivedaysofpassingsuchorder.This order came in response to a writ petition filed by Jan Chetna against the order of

the National Environment Appellate Authority dismissing an appeal on grounds of

delay. Jan Chetna had filed an

appeal in the NEAA againstthe environmental clearance

granted on 5 November 2008

to the M/s Scania Steel &

Power Ltd. for expansion of its

integrated steel plant and captive power plant at . in Chhatisgarh. The NEAA had

dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appeal filed by Jan Chetna on the 90th

day from the date of the clearance (31January 2009) did not contain an application for

condonation of delay. According to Section 11 of the NEAA Act, an Appeal against an

order granting environmental clearance has to be filed within 30 days of the order. The

NEAA may entertain the appeal after the expiry of 30 days but not after 90 days if it

finds that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. Rule 5(4) of the NEAARules 1997 mandates that in case of delay the memorandum of appeal should include

separate application for condonation of delay and an affidavit in support of such

application.

The Delhi High Court observed that the Petitioner had included the grounds for

condonation of delay in their memorandum of Appeal which were that information

relating to the grant of the environmental clearance was not available in the public

until 19 January 2009 and the order itself was only received by the Petitioner from the

MoEF on 29 January 2009. The High Court found this ground to be sufficient for the

NEAA to condone the delay. The MoEF uploads the order granting environmental

clearance on its website long after these are passed and invariably after a period of 30days. This meant that those persons who are aggrieved by the order of the MoEF and

were located outside Delhi are unable to file the Appeal with the NEAA within

limitation period. The High Court held that if the proviso to Section 11 of the NEAA

Act (allowing condonation of delay) were to be strictly construed, it would be

mandatory for the MoEF to make the entire order and information relating to the grant

of environmental clearance available on its website within five days of passing the order.

An aggrieved person is unlikely to know about the order within a reasonable period of

time other than by looking at the website. The Court was unable to accept the technical

AnaggrievedpersonsrighttofileanAppealagainstanenvironmentalclearanceisdefeatedifheisnotawareoftheordergrantingsuchclearance


6/16

6ground taken by the NEAA that since there was no separate application for

condonation of delay, the Appeal had to be dismissed. The Appeal was restored to the

file of the NEAA and it was directed to decide the matter on merits in accordance with

law and within three months from the date of receipt of the Courts order.

The High Court in its order not only directed the MoEF to ensure that all orders

granting environmental clearance are made available on its website no later than 5 daysfrom the date of passing of the order but also directed the MoEF to publish the said

order in two local newspapers in the area in which the industry concerned (which has

been granted permission) is located or is proposed to be located, one of which is in the

local language.

HowMOEFisViolatingtheHighCourtOrderTheMoEFamended theEnvironment ImpactAssessmentNotification2006on 1

December 2009.One of the amendmentswas to Para 10 Post Environmental

ClearanceMonitoring.TheAmendmentaddsanewPara10(i)

10(i) (a)InrespectofCategoryAprojects,itshallbemandatoryfortheprojectproponent tomakepublic theenvironmental clearancegrantedfor theirprojectalong with the environmental conditions and safeguards at their cost byprominentlyadvertisingitat leastintwo localnewspapersofthedistrictorStatewhere theproject is located and in addition, this shall also be displayed in theprojectproponentswebsitepermanently.

(b) In respect of Category B projects, irrespective of its clearance byMoEF/SEIAA,theprojectproponentshallprominentlyadvertiseinthenewspapersindicating that the project has been accorded environment clearance and thedetailsofMoEFwebsitewhereitisdisplayed

(c)TheMinistryofEnvironmentandForestsandtheState/UnionTerritoryLevel Environment ImpactAssessmentAuthorities (SEIAAs), as the casemay be,shallalsoplacetheenvironmentalclearanceinthepublicdomainonGovernmentportal.

(d) The copies of the environmental clearance shall be submitted by theprojectproponentstotheHeadsoflocalbodies,PanchayatsandMunicipalBodiesinadditiontotherelevantofficesoftheGovernmentwhointurnhastodisplaythesamefor30daysfromthedateofreceipt.(emphasisadded)Interestingly,theMoEFdoesnotgiveatimelimittoitselfortheprojectproponent

toplacetheinformationrelatingtotheenvironmentclearanceandtheorderitself

inthe

public

domain

website

and

the

newspapers.

The

High

Court

of

Delhi

had

emphasisedonthefactthatifthisinformationwasnotmadepublicattheearliest,

the right of the aggrieved to Appeal to the NEAAwas taken away. The MoEFappearstohavedeliberatelychosento ignorethispartoftheCourtsorderwhilemakingamendmentsvidetheabovementionedNotification.


7/16

7

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY QUASHES AN

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FOR THE SECOND TIME

The National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) in a landmark order of 8-3-

2010 quashed the environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment &

Forests (MoEF) to the Athena Chattisgarh Power Private Limited (ACPPL) to set up a

1200 MW power plant in Janjgir Champa district of Chattisgarh. This is the first time

in the 12 years since the NEAA was set up that an environmental clearance has been

stayed. The lone member of the NEAA Mr. J.C. Kala in his order stated that he had

viewed recordings of the proceedings of the Public Hearing held on 15 January 2009 in

the presence of the Appellants representative and the Respondents (who did not

dispute the authenticity of the recording). The Additional Collector after hearing the

views of Mr. Ramesh Agrawal, Member, Jan Chetna, that the EIA Notification ofconducting Public Hearing had not been followed, had announced during the Public

Hearing that the Public Hearing was cancelled. This meant that the proceedings of the

Public Hearing had no validity. It was not clear from the minutes of the Expert

Appraisal Committees (EAC) minutes whether it had taken this fact into

consideration. In view of this Mr. J.C. Kala deemed it fit that the clearance order be

quashed.

PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DESERVES INDEPTH SCRUTINY :DELHI HIGH COURT

The procedural propriety of the grant of an environmental clearance to the BorgaMines at Village Rivona to Panduranga Timblo Industrias was the main issue before

the High Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by Utkarsh Mandal. The Petitioner had

approached the Court after an Appeal against an environment clearance granted to the

renewal of a mining lease in Goa was dismissed by the NEAA. The High Court

highlighted the three questions which were thrown up by the facts situation in the case

-

First, whether there was a requirement to make the Executive Summary of the EIA

available at least 30 days prior to the Public Hearing; and if it is not, would that vitiate

the Environmental Clearance?

Second, whether the principle of natural justice was violated by the fact that the EAC

(Mines) was chaired by a person who was the Director of four mining companies.

Third, whether the absence of reason in a decision of an administrative decision -

making body vitiated the decision itself.

With regard to the first question, the Court held that for project affected persons to

meaningfully participate in public hearing, they must have the full information of the


8/16

8pros and cons of the proposed project and the impact it is likely to have on the

environment of the area. The EIA report is not in the public domain until the public

hearing. Unless it is made available mandatorily, the project affected persons would

have no knowledge of the environmental impact of the project. To this extent, the

Court disagreed with the holding of the NEAA which held that there was no

procedural infraction in making the Executive Summary available only 9 days before

the Public Hearing as was the case in the present instance. However the Court heldthat despite the Executive Summary not being available to project affected persons 30

Rivona Village in Sanguem Taluka, Goa. The marked out areas are the tentative

areas proposed for mining.

days before the Public Hearing, there was no need to hold the Public Hearing again as

it had been attended by a number of people and 67 objections were received.

In response to the second question, the Court noted that appointing a person who had

a direct interest in the promotion of the mining industry as Chairperson of the EAC

(Mines) was an unhealthy practice that would rob the EAC of its credibility since there

is an obvious and direct conflict of interest. In this regard the Court made certain other

observations on the functioning of the EAC. The EAC had granted clearance to 410

projects in the first six months of 2009 which were a very high number in a fairly short

period of time. The Court further found the practice of passing several environmental

clearances by the EAC on the same day as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Accordingto the Court, not more than five applications should be considered in a single meeting

of the EAC.

The EAC before recommending a clearance to the Project had not given any reasoning

as to how the objections raised by the Public were either satisfied by the project

proponents response or were otherwise over-ruled by the EAC The NEAA while

considering the Appeal of the Petitioner had also observed that the EAC in its minutes


9/16

9of the meeting had done a detailed analysis of the various technical and environmental

issues but it was not apparent that the opposition to the Project had passed such a

rigorous test. The NEAA propounded on the need to have reasoning recorded in the

decision making process and for the MoEF to advise its Committees to record their

reasons for recommendations. Despite this the NEAA decided that the absence of the

reasoning in the present case did not vitiate the environmental clearance order in any

manner.

The High Court while deciding on the third question pointed out that the EAC was a

delegate of the MoEF and the task of evaluation had been outsourced to it. While the

decision of the EAC is not binding on the MoEF, it all the same performs a public law

function as is expected to function in accordance with the same standards which the

law requires the MoEF to adhere. The Court held-

37. The requirement of an administrative decision making

body to give reasons has been viewed as an essential

concomitant of acting fairly. Given that such a decision is in

any event amenable to judicial review, the failure to make

known the reasons for the decision makes it difficult for thejudicial body entrusted with the power of reviewing such

decision as to its reasonableness and fairness. The decision

must reflect the consideration of the materials available before

the decision maker and the opinion formed on such material.

The EIA Notification requires the EAC to undertake a

detailed scrutiny of the objections raised during the

public hearing and the response given to the objections

by the Project Proponent. Therefore, it is necessary that

the decision of the EAC to recommend a project must

reflect the consideration made on the merit of theobjections. It is not enough that the MoEF applies its

mind to the matter. The whole objective of outsourcing

the task of appraisal to the EAC is that a group of

experts can evaluate the project and the objections raised

therefore it is imperative that the body and not merely

the MoEF, applies its collective mind to the objections.

If reasons are not given as to why any or all of the

objections are accepted or negatived, the decision would

be vulnerable to attack on the ground that there is non-application of mind and hence

it is arbitrary. The Court found the stand taken by the NEAA to be surprising that

despite observing the lack of reasons, it did not believe that the final decision was

affected. The Court came to the conclusion that if the order of the NEAA was allowed

to stand, every Public Hearing would be reduced to a farce and even if a large number

of objections are raised, the clearance would still be granted.

The Court noticed that on the date of the Public Hearing for this mine, there were

Public Hearings for five other projects which were to be held on the same day, time and

venue. The Court found this to be indicative of the fact that MoEF took the

requirement of the Public Hearing in the EIA Notification lightly. The Court directed

The whole

objective of

outsourcing the

taskof

appraisal

to theEAC is that

agroupofexperts

can evaluate the

project and the

objections raised

therefore it is

imperative that

thebody

applies

itscollectivemind

to the objections

not merely the

MoEF.


10/16

10that this practice be immediately corrected. The Court also stated that Public Hearings

should have adequate publicity and notice should be repeated over a period of ten days.

With regard to the issue of conditional clearances given to certain Projects, the Court

advised the MoEF to review its practice of giving conditional clearances without

specifying whether the conditions have to be mandatorily met before or after the

commencement of the Project.

Finally, the Court set aside the order of the NEAA and directed the EAC (Mines) to

hear the matter afresh consider all the objections raised and conduct a site visit itself

or through a sub-committee. The EAC was directed to render its fresh decision within

three months from the receipt of the order by Secretary, MoEF and the MoEF was

directed to take a decision within 8 weeks of thereafter. The Court further directed

each of the Respondents to give 10,000/- costs to the Petitioner.

Thejudgementwasdeliveredon26112009.On1022010i.ebeforetheexpiryofthree

monthstheMoEF inremarkablespeedwhich ischaracteristicof its functioningwhen it

comesto

project

proponents,

has

granted

fresh

Environmental

Clearance

to

the

mining

project.AsitevisitwasmadeduringthefirstweekofJanuary,2010.TheMoEFteamwas

accompaniedbytheprojectproponent.Butnoeffortwasmadetomeetwitheitherthe

local affected people or even the petitioner organization i.e UttakarshMandal or to

informthem.

Lafarge Cement project stayed by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on 5thFebruary, 2010 stayed the environmental clearance granted

to Lafarge Cements Ltd in response to the report of the Central EmpoweredCommittee and a petition filed by Shella Action Committee. The case involves the

setting up of a cement Plant in Bangladesh with the mine located in Meghalaya. The

limestone was to be sent through conveyor belts. The EIA report prepared by ERM (An

EIA firm) had mentioned the area of barren and devoid of vegetation, but the site visit

report after approval of the project found out that the land was infact densely forested

and with dense vegetation and therefore attracts the provisions of the Forest

(Conservation) Act,1980 and the Supreme Court orders. Lafarge has set up a plant

worth $225 million to extract limestone, which will be transported on a 17-km long

conveyor belt to a factory on the border with Bangladesh. The then Chief Conservator

of Forests Shri B.N Jha of the regional office of MoEF had recommended for

blacklisting of ERM for wrong information provided by it.


11/16

11

EIAFOLLOWUP

REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR. ASAD R. RAHMANI AND DR. ASHA RAJVANSHI TO THESTANDING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF WILDLIFE ON THE VISIT TO THE

NAUPADA SWAMP AND THE PROJECT SITE OF THE 2640 MW BHAVNAPADU THERMAL

POWER PROJECT OF M/S EAST COAST ENERGY PVT. LTD.

The Journal in its February 2009 issue had

covered the assessment of the Bhavnapadu

Thermal Power Project of M/s East Coast

Energy Pvt. Ltd. (ECEPL) by the Bombay

Natural History Society. In that issue a brief

description of the Project along with the chief

recommendations of the BNHS had beenreproduced. In December 2009, Dr. Asad R.

Rahmani of BNHS and Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

of Wildlife Institute of India, submitted a

report to the Standing Committee of the

Nation

al

Board of Wildlife on the site visit made to the

Naupada Swamp and the project site. The

Report includes a brief critique of the EIA

Report submitted by ECEPL, the description of

the environmental clearance process, and adetailed site inspection report. At the end the

Report makes certain significant

recommendations for the Standing Committee

to consider.

The EIA report submitted has significant

inaccuracies and omissions some of which were

highlighted in the report:

1. The Final EIA report states that there areno national parks, sanctuaries,

elephant/tiger reserves and migratoryroutes within 10 km radius of the

proposed site which is entirely wrong as

the report itself observes elsewhere the

presence of several migratory species

such as Bar-headed goose, shoveller,

spotted bill Pelican, sarus crane etc.

The EIA was carriedout from March 2007toMay2007whicharethe summer monthswhen themarsh/swamp has theleastamountofwaterand the area is usedfor cattle grazing. Themigratory birds arriveonly Septemberonwards. Even thelocal migratory birdsare confined toremaining wateredareas.

Therefore,

the

study ignores theimpact on thisbiodiversityandunderestimates the impactoftheProject.Report of NBWL


12/16

122. It has been wrongly stated in the EIA report that there are no endangered

animal species recorded or reported in the area of study. WII has recorded the

nesting of the Olive Ridley Turtles in this area which are a Schedule I species

under the Wildlife Protection Act.

3. The Report also ignores the species which are on the IUCN Red Data listwhose presence has been recorded in the area such as the Spot-billed Pelican,

Painted Stork, Sarus crane etc. The Painted Stork is a large (93 cm) colourfulconspicuous bird and if the researchers have missed this bird which inhabits the

swamp, the EIA was not conducted by competent people. The EIA study claims

that it has interviewed the local people. It seems unlikely that the local people

who consider the Painted Stork and the Pelican to be auspicious would not be

aware of the presence of these large birds in the area.

4. While it is true that the project site isnot a protected area or a wildlife

sanctuary but the Andhra Pradesh Forest

Department has acknowledged the

importance of the area as a vital nesting

site for Spot billed Pelican and PaintedStork which are two globally threatened

species. This is evidenced by the

construction of a Bird observatory House

and Watch Tower. In addition the site

has been proposed to be designated as a

biodiversity heritage site under the

Biological Diversity Act 2002.

The Final EIA report for the project was

considered at the 36th EAC meeting in June

2008 during which the above-mentionedinconsistencies were highlighted by a member of

the EAC. Keeping this in view, the EAC

recommended that the EIA report be modified

and a site-visit be undertaken by a sub-group of

the EAC. The sub-group conducted a site visit in

July 2008 and observed the conservation values

of the site and expressed the need to undertake

a more detailed assessment of ways to mitigate the impact on the wetland values of the

area. In the December 2008 meeting of the EAC, the proposed site was considered an

ecological entity with incomparable value requiring conservation and protection and

recommended that the project proponent to shift their site sufficiently away from the

marshy area.

The Project proponents reorganized their project plan and excluded 500 acres of marsh

land from the southern part of their plan from the original 2,450 acres. The Project was

finally recommended for environmental clearance on 11 February 2009.

Considering the fact that the Naupada swamps were important bird area in India, the

Standing Committee of the NBWL unanimously decided that a site inspection should

The Painted Stork is alarge (93 cm) colourfulconspicuous bird and ifthe researchers havemissed this bird whichinhabits the swamp, theEIAwasnotconductedbycompetent people. TheEIA study claims that ithas interviewed the localpeople. It seemsunlikelythatthelocalpeoplewhoconsider the PaintedStork and the Pelican tobe auspicious would notbeawareofthepresenceoftheselargebirdsinthearea.

Report of NBWL


13/16

13be carried out by Dr. Rehmani and Dr. Rajvanshi and a

detailed report should be submitted to the Board elaborating

on the ecological significance of the site. The site inspection

was conducted on 16-17 November 2009.

After discussions and site visit, Dr. Rahmani and Dr. Rajvanshi

came to the conclusion that the project will already have amajor ecological footprint, and therefore the team suggested

that every effort should be made to contain any other

associated impact of the project from additional infrastructure

requirement. The team categorically indicated that no

additional infrastructure should be planned in this area for

receiving the coal and that the proposal for constructing a jetty

should be dropped. The project officials agreed to review the

possibility of the existing port at Visakhapatanam for

transportation of coal.

The expert team finally gave several primary and secondaryrecommendations in their report. The team identified a major

launae in the process of land acquisition in Andhra Pradesh

the fact that revenue land was being treated as wasteland

despite the immense ecological value of that land. There was

no process in place to identify important wetlands in the areas

falling outside forest and protected areas.

In view of the fact that this wetland should not have been

allocated for the project in the first place, the expert team

recommended that a Committee be constituted to assess the

ecological damage and the cost for restoration should be paidby the ECEPL. No permanent construction had been done so

far. However, preliminary land work had been initiated.

ECEPL should be directed to vacate the land immediately and

the wetland should be declared as an important wetland.

While the team stressed on the need to restore the habitat to

its original state, it also made certain secondary

recommendations to minimise the damage to the ecological

important site by the project if it continued. These

recommendations included serious efforts to be made by the

project authorities to reduce their ecological footprint by

ensuring that strong and effective steps are taken to remedy the

impacts that the plant may have on the site; reduction in land

requirement for the project; the remaining wetlands should

remain untouched and should be given special protection. The

Conservation Cell of ECEPL should take up the conservation

and protection of the Naupada-Meghavaran swamp under the

integrated plan for conservation of all wetlands in the area of

their operation.

Note by editors: It issurprisingthattheNBWLteam sought to providea route for the projectproponent to escape.The EIA report wasclearly based onconcealment ofinformation.

Work

was

initiatedatthesitepriorto environmentalclearanceand terms likethe site was not aproposed migratory sitefor birds was used.Clearly there isno scopefor allowing such aproject to come up. TheNBWL teamrecommended that thethermal power plant atSompeta should not beallowed to come up.Unfortunately, theSompeta plant wasapproved by theMinistry of Environmentand

Forest

in

January

2010


14/16

14The expert team also made some

suggestions to the Government. Policy

directive for the protection of wetlands

outside protected areas and forests were

urgently required. Wetland Banking should

be promoted. Other areas of conservationimportance in the state of Andhra Pradesh

should be mapped and competent

authorities should be identified. No other

wetland should be given to any

development agency for industrial

development. There is a plan to construct

another power plant in Sompeta wetland.

The proposal should be cancelled

immediately.

Postscript: The Standing Committee of theNational Board of Wildlife in its 17th

meeting held on 22 December 2009

unanimously accepted the

recommendations of the expert team and

decided to forward the suggestions and

conditions proposed by the team to the

state government for consideration

including the suggestion to declare the area

as a Conservation Reserve.

EIA CRITIQUE :SEISMIC SURVEY ON THE BRAHMAPUTRA

RIVER BY OIL INDIA LTD

The Oil India Limited (OIL) has proposed a Project which involves the seismic

exploration along the river bed of the River Brahmaputra to prospect for oil. ThisProject may jeopardize the survival of the Ganges river dolphin (Platanista gangetica)

which inhabits the River. The Rapid Environment Impact Assessment (REIA) report

submitted by the OIL was recently critiqued by Dr. Linda Weilgart, Scientific Advisor

for the International Ocean Noise Coalition and the Okeanos Foundation. She finds

the assessment submitted by OIL to be inadequate as there are several gaps in the study.

The following are her findings in brief:

On 18thofMarch, 2010, the

National Environment

Appellate Authority partially

stayed the work on the

projectby

directing

that

no

fillingup ofwetlandbeyond

the 1000 hectares already

filled up should take place

thistheappealfiledbeforeit

is disposed off. It further

directed that the proposal

fortheJettyisalsostayedtill

the disposal of the appeal.

TheMOEF

on

its

part

has

constituted another team of

experts to study the report

of Dr Rahmani and Dr

Rajvanshi. One will not be

surprised as towhatwill be

theoutcomeofthereport!


15/16

151. The Ganges river dolphin is not a marine mammal. This project would not be

conducted in the more open waters of the marine environment. Therefore, the

vast majority of the published studies cited in the REIA have very limited

relevance to the question of whether the proposed project poses the risk of

jeopardizing the continued survival of the Ganges river dolphin. There are two

prominent reasons, among others, why studies examining the impacts of loud

noise on marine mammals have limited relevance to impacts on the Gangesriver dolphin. First, the Ganges river dolphin, which inhabits far murkier

waters than marine mammals, has extremely limited visual perception and

relies far more on sound perception to survive. Impairment to sound

perception will likely have a much greater impact on Ganges river dolphin

than on marine cetaceans. Second,

a river is essentially a one-

dimensional channel of water in

which there is only one direction a

Ganges river dolphin could take

flight from an approaching boat

carrying seismic air guns. Incontrast, the open ocean offers

marine mammals a three-

dimensional means to take flight

from an approaching boat carrying seismic air guns and avoid the impacts of

loud noise.

2. The list of publications that have apparently been relied on by the authors israther limited because it omits several significant publications.

3. The report proposes mitigation measure for the predicted major impacts of theproject. However, the mitigation measures proposed are undermined, if not

nullified, by a substantial number of serious uncertainties and data gaps in the

REIA. Some of the uncertainties highlighted by her as follows:

a. Would the Ganges river dolphin avoid the area during seismic testing byleaving habitat that is important for them? Observations of river dolphin

show that they hesitate to leave noisy, disturbed areas until it is too late

to do so, suffering sudden population declines.

b. If the Ganges river dolphin were to take flight from an area duringseismic testing, would negative associations of the area with excessive

noise prevent Ganges river dolphin from returning?

c. Would Ganges river dolphin suffer physiological trauma aside fromhearing loss, such as tissue damage? The Ganges river dolphin may

suffer non-auditory effects, like resonance, when exposed to excessive

noise even if the frequency of such noise is beyond their range of

hearing.

d. Would Ganges river dolphin prey be impacted by leaving the area or bychanging their behavior in a manner that makes such prey inaccessible?

ALERT!

The recent amendmentmade to

the EIA Notification in 2009

deletedSeismic

surveys

from

the

provisionsoftheEIANotification.


16/16

16e. Would the proposed project cause sub-lethal effects such as stress that

compromises the reproduction and survival of the Ganges River

dolphin?

4. Monitoring has been proposed as a means to minimise the impact on theendangered population. This has been criticized as being unreasonable as by the

time the monitoring measures detect an effect on the endangered population, itmay be too late to reverse the effect. There are inherent limitations to the

monitoring of the Ganges River dolphin as they are very shy and hard to spot.

Furthermore, this particular population has hardly been studied and therefore

there is very little baseline data on the population. Therefore detection of

population-level impact would be very difficult.

5. The REIA states that only received noise levels above 180 decibels may causeharm to the Ganges River dolphin. This figure is controversial and in any case it

is mainly for physical trauma and injury and not for behavorial effects.

The Access Initiative has recently come out with its latest publication: How

Green Will be the Green Tribunal ?

For copies of the same please Contact : [email protected],[email protected]

QUA TERLY E JOURN AL

EIA Resource & Response Centre (ERC) and The Access Initiative, India

Coalition

ERC is a joint initiative of the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE),The Environics Trust and PEACE Institute

T AI I n d i a is part of the Global TAI Network (www.accessinitiative.org) whichaims at promoting access to Information, participation and access to justice onenvironmental issues.(ERC invites comments, suggestions as well as papers and articles and news of

EIA issues)

TH I S JOURNAL I S PUBLI SHED W I TH THE K I ND SUPPORT OF THE DULEEP

MATHA I NATURE CONSERVAT I ON TRUST

EIA Resource and Response Centre (ERC)

N71,LGF,GreaterKailashI

NewDelhi 110048

Email:[email protected],[email protected]:www.ercindia.org

EIA Jornal 4

Documents

Transcript of EIA Jornal 4