Air pollutant emissions from the proposed integrated steel plant near Paradip port in Jagatsinghpur, Odisha, will cause an estimated 94 deaths per year, as per a Health Impact and Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report released on January 25, 2022.

For years now, villagers in the district have been protesting the development projects proposed in their area by Indian steel company JSW Utkal Ltd. Alleging that the authorities are in cahoots with the company, the community earlier rejected the environmental clearance, as local Gram Sabhas has not been consulted.

However, CREA’s report titled Health Impacts Assessment of Integrated Steel Plant, JSW Utkal Steel Limited exposed how the report’s serious shortcomings not only falsify the actual environment impact but also serious health impact.

Health impact of JSW project

“Air pollution would also lead to a projected 180 emergency room visits due to asthma, 160 preterm births and 75,000 days of work absence per year,” wrote Sunil Dahiya and Lauri Myllyvirta in the report.

The proposed project site is 5-10 km away from an already severely polluted area of Paradeep – one of the most polluted geographies in India and classified as ‘severely polluted’ by the Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI). The pollution received from there has already caused high air pollution levels at the site. This is mentioned in the original EIA report.

Yet, the EIA report claimed that the fine particles (PM10 levels) in the ambient air during project work will remain within the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as prescribed by MoEFCC. The health assessment report said this is misleading because the prevailing PM10 levels are already higher than the prescribed standards.

Further, the emission load of the proposed plant will be about twice the fine particle emissions for the entire cluster at Paradeep and two-third sulfur dioxide (SO2). This means that the worsening air quality will result in severe health impact and extend the intensity and geographical reach of pre-existing CEPI area.

Citing this report, Lok Shakti Abhiyan President Prafulla Samantara wrote to the entire Environmental Action Committee (EAC) that the affected villages in Dhinkia Charidesh house over 22,000 people.

“[They] will be forced to bear the brunt of dangerous cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases along with scarcity of clean drinking water,” he said.

EIA shortcomings listed

Focusing on the EIA, the report said that the EIA makes a “skewed” comparison between the three-season average to daily PM10 levels. The daily PM10 standard is 100 μg/m3, whereas the annual standard is 60 μg/m3. Due to this significant difference in data points, the report said seasonal and cross-seasonal averages should be compared to annual rather than daily standards.

The EIA report also included 50 readings per station, collected across seasons to assess ambient air quality. According to the CPCB protocol, 50 or more days of monitoring in a year should be compared to the average annual concentration.

Similarly, the EIA does not account for incremental PM2.5 from the plant operation, the most harmful part of the particulate pollution. The health assessment report said data on such emissions is integral to Environment and Health Impact Assessments. Other important data points missed are accounting for mercury or any other heavy metal from the plant operation.

Dahiya and Myllyvirta also pointed out that the air pollution dispersion model in the EIA fails to account for secondary particulate formation PM2.5 formed from SO2 and nitrogen oxide emissions. This significantly underestimates the total pollution concentrations.

“These formed secondary PM2.5 make up a more significant component of the total PM2.5 emission load from any fossil fuel combustion facility. Accounting for secondary particulates make the predicted PM levels from the plant multiple times higher,” said the health report.

Additionally, Lime Kiln, Cement Plant and other combustion sources entirely omitted NOx emissions data without any explanation. Combustion of any fuel produces NOx emissions, which should be accounted for to ensure EIAs are comprehensive and nuanced.

Samantara and other activists appealed to officials to withdraw the project proposal in light of these findings. Rather than using an inadequate and fraudulent EIA, Samantara asked that fresh assessment be done instead.

“We demand an independent assessment based on understanding the comprehensive environment and health impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding areas including human settlements to be carried out before proceeding any further,” he said.

The full report may be read here:

Related:

Odisha: 3 activists arrested for speaking truth to power in fact-finding report
Dhinkia: A story of perseverance against administrative oppression
End police oppression! FIAN Int. stands with Odisha’s adivasis
Odisha Police beat up Adivasi villagers

The post Odisha’s JSW project could cause 94 deaths a year: CREA report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Enraged by the severe changes in the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) has called for nationwide protests on November 12, 2021.

On October 11, AIUFWP Chairman Ashok Chaudhary condemned the manner in which the draft proposal changes to the Act infringe on the rights of forest-dwellers and tribal communities. However, he stressed that this isn’t the first time the central government has introduced amendments to “turn the tide against the peoples’ aspirations and rights.”

On March 23, 2020, the central government issued a draft notification concerning Environment Impact Assessment rules (draft EIA 2020). At the time, the AIUFWP demanded a complete withdrawal of the same citing multiple reasons, not the least of which was the timing of the move.

Chaudhary wrote a letter to relevant officials in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), criticising the department for issuing the notification amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. That the draft EIA 2020 was circulated online in English and Hindi alone also irked union members, who could not understand these languages nor access the internet to read the document.

“As the weakening of provisions under EIA 2006 is now prescribed by this new draft, we find that forest-dwelling communities are one of the most vulnerable stakeholders who will be affected by these changes and hence their opinion on this should be sought,” said the AIUFWP in the letter.

It highlighted contentious aspects of the notification like the post-facto clearance mechanism that allowed projects to begin construction before availing an EIA clearance – rendering the whole process obsolete. Many new projects were included in the “Industrial Estate” category – Coastal Economic Zones, special investment regions, petroleum, chemicals and petrochemical investment regions, hydropower and renewables – that could infringe on basic rights of local indigenous communities.

“Draft EIA 2020 gives industries, corporations, and public projects licence to loot our “Jal, Jungle, Jameen” “Water, Forest, and Land” which is antithetical to the idea of national interest,” it said.

The AIUFWP also said that the draft EIA 2020 weakened state governments’ powers over such issues that will worsen the pollution in concerned areas. It may be mentioned that similar concerns have been raised about the draft proposals in the FCA as well. The draft EIA 2020 barely gave concerned social groups the time to respond to the sudden changes. This time, the MoEFCC extended the deadline for comments and responses till November 1.

Still members remain cautious, especially after how categorisation and recategorization of projects in the draft EIA 2020 were done through a ‘Technical Expert Committee’ that replaced public hearings.

“Not only is public scrutiny avoided, an objectionable pattern ignores “Project Affected Communities.” There is a need to look at the draft EIA 2020 in conjunction with other legal provisions in relation to forest, land, and rights,” said Chaudhary.

By this he referred to amendments like those of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (LARR 2013) that gave free passes to government projects without public consent. Similarly, changes to the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 violate the Forest Rights Act and the Wildlife Protection Act that barred projects without gram sabha consent.

Related:

India farmers, Adivasis and forest dwellers condemn FCA draft changes
Forest Conservation Act: GoI suggests fundamental changes Act, despite widespread objections
Protect Maliparvat: Odisha Adivasis prepare for another struggle to protect their land
Climate change policies will never work until Adivasis are included: AIUFWP Roma Malik
Forest resource rights and Land rights as per Forest Rights Act

The post Dilution of environmental laws, a persistent tactic: AIUFWP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Karnataka High Court has restrained Centre from publishing the final notification of the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) 2020 notification until September 7. The direction was given in a petition filed by a trust called United Conservation movement stating that the draft EIA notification was not given sufficient publicity.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok Kinagi noted that the draft notification was published on March 23, which was a day before the national lockdown was announced by the Centre. Further, the draft was published on the website only on April 11. The Covid-19 pandemic did not give much opportunity to people for filing objections. The Bench observed, “Prima facie it appears to us that the right of citizens to file objection has been taken away”. The Centre has extended the date to file objections until August 11.

The order says that if the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change is willing to grant reasonable time to people for filing objections from the date on which wide publicity is given in the state, then this interim relief may be vacated.

The court also pointed out that in Karnataka the lockdown went on till May; in June there were some relaxations and in July again limited period lockdown was in place.

The court even expressed its disappointment over the stand taken by the Centre that the notification be published in the official gazette only in Hindi and English. The counsel appearing for the Centre, Advocate Shiva Kumar cited Article 343 of the Constitution and stated that it was not the obligation of the Centre to give publicity in regional languages.

The same argument was raised at the previous hearing and the court had then said, “Prima facie, we do not agree with the submission that the hands of the respondent are tied by virtue of provisions of the Official Languages Act and that they cannot ensure publication of the notification in official languages of the state.” The Court further said, “The approach of the respondents suggests that perhaps those who don’t understand Hindi and English language need not file comments or objections to the notification.”

When Kumar said that all State Environment Impact Assessment Authority was directed to give publicity in local languages, the court said, “Till today it is not brought on record by respondents that publicity is given in Kannada language”.

A similar matter has been previously heard by the Delhi High Court whereby the court had directed the Centre to extend last date of filing objections to August 11 and had also directed that the notification be published in all 22 official languages.

The matter will be next heard on September 7.

The draft EIA 2020 amends the EIA 2006 but it proposes a legal regime that could potentially increase the environmental risks to forest dwellers, endangered species and the overall ecosystem. It has been widely criticized by environmental and civil rights groups for weakening environmental regulations by giving post facto clearance and doing away with important processes like public consultations.

Related:

Publish Draft EIA in 22 Indian Languages, Delhi HC to Modi Sarkar

EIA 2020: A ‘rubber stamp’ for environmental degradation

Crushing dissent: Did GOI block websites of three environmental groups?

The post Draft EIA: K’taka HC extends date for filing objections, restrains Centre from releasing final notification appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has directed the Modi government to immediately translate the much criticised draft Environment Impact Assessment(EIA) notification 2020 into all 22 languages mentioned in the eight schedule of the Indian constitution, and publish it government websites. Last Tuesday, June 30, the court had extended the date for consultation about the controversial draft EIA notification 2020 to August 11 despite the union environment ministry’s insistence that June 30 ought to be the last date. Following the Delhi HC order today, the EIA will have to be published prominently on the websites of the environment ministries and the pollution control boards of all state governments by July 10 to ensure wider public consultation.

“We are of the view that it would be in aid of effective dissemination of the proposed notification if arrangements are made for its translation into other languages as well, at least those mentioned in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution,” wrote the two judge Delhi HC bench comprising Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Pratik Jalan in its seven page judgment dated June 30 which was released late on Wednesday evening. 

The Orders of the HC may be read here

“Such translations should also be published through the website of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India as well as on websites of Environment Ministries of all the States as well as those of State Pollution Control Boards, within ten days from today. This would further enable the public to respond to the draft within the period stipulated in this judgment,” the judgment also noted.  

Earlier records show that the central government published the draft of India’s most important law for environment clearances, the environment impact assessment notification, only in Hindi and English. Senior Counsel Gopal Shankarnarayan, who argued Tongad’s PIL before the judges, mentioned during the hearing that though the notification had been published only in two languages, it is proposed to have effect all over India and to several industries and comments have been elicited from all over the country. 

Among the 22 languages that the Narendra Modi government will now print the draft notification in are the more widely spoken languages like Marathi, Punjabi and Tamil as well as those like Maithili, Manipuri and Konkani which are spoken by relatively small numbers of people.

So to emphasise his point about the need for wider consultations about the draft notification in a greater number of languages, Shankarnarayan cited the example of the draft Coastal Regulation Zone notification 2010 which had been published in September 2010 in nine coastal languages in addition to Hindi and English. The court appears to have been convinced.

Among the 22 languages that the government will now print the draft notification in are the more widely spoken languages like Marathi, Punjabi and Tamil as well as those like Maithili, Manipuri and Konkani which are spoken by relatively small numbers of people. A complete list of the 22 Eight Schedule languages can be seen here. 

June 30:

The court explained that, since the first notification was issued officially on April 11, the mandatory sixty-day consultation period would have been exhausted on June 11. However, keeping in mind the Covid-19 lockdown, the government had extended the consultation period by another 60 days so the final date for consultation should be August 11 and yet the official record shows June 30 as the date. “This is an error apparent on the face of the record,” the HC noted in its order. 

Last week it was HuffPost India that exposed, based on official documents of the environment ministry accessed through the Right to Information, that the union environment minister, Prakash Javdekar had overruled his own officials’ suggestion that the consultation period be extended till August 10 and vetoed 30 June 2020 as the date instead without giving any reasons or explanations. But following a Public Interest Litigation filed by environment activist Vikrant Tongad, the Delhi HC has now directed the union environment ministry to extend the consultations till August 11 by publishing the notification in 22 languages of the eight schedule.

Related:

Scientists urge citizens to write to demand rejection of forest clearance in Dibang Valley

Will take legal action if Guj gov’t fails to check flooding, water-logging: Environmentalists
Deep Sea Mining: Boost for economy but bane for future generations?

Stop the open industrial and mining activities in tribal areas: NGO to Odisha CM

The post Publish Draft EIA in 22 Indian Languages, Delhi HC to Modi Sarkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.