Quoting the September 27 MoEFCC’s Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) meeting,  released on October 2, a senior scholar-activist of the top environmental advocacy group South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) has reported that in a “respite” to forest dwelling communities, fragile biodiversity and community conservation areas, the EAC has “rejected” the Adani application for project.

However, the window for continuing with the controversial project hasn’t been entirely closed. To quote Parineeta Dandekar, the proponents have been asked “to apply afresh” for Stage I Clearance, adding several conditions to assessment. To quote her, “The EAC did not approve the Adani application for amendments in the Terms of Reference (TORs) earlier granted for 1200 MW Warasgaon-Warangi Pumped Storage Project (PSP) by Adani Green Energy.”

Appreciating the move, Dandekar said, the EAC not just “rejected” the application but “decided to visit sites all the PSPs that have applied for environment clearance before giving any further clearances”, hoping, “The site visits will expose the perilous siting of over 15 pumped storage projects in the Western Ghats.”

In a detailed analysis on September 24 on the advocacy group’s website, Dandekar had pointed  to how the upper dam of 1500 MW Warasgaon Warangi Project “was set to destroy a sacred fish pool and sacred grove of Goddess Varadayini in the village Tekpowale.” This followed an SANDRP submission to the EAC outlining the impacts of this project on the “ecologically sensitive area” and the “wider cumulative impact” of the multiple PSP schemes in the Western Ghats.

The submission was signed by more than 200 individuals and organizations, including Parineeta Dandekar and Himanshu Thakkar of SANDRP; Suniti SR and colleagues of the National Alliance for People’s Movements; Shailaja Deshpande and colleagues of the Jeevit Nadi; Priyadarshini Karve of the Indian Network on Ethics and Climate Change; Jaideep Baphana of Pune River Revival (a group with over 1000 members in Pune); and Shripad Dharmadhikary of the Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, Pune.

Quoting the minutes of the  EAC meeting, Dandekar said, it asked the project proponents to prepare “a new project layout which will not obstruct rivulets in Western Ghats” and “change the project layout to reduce impact on forest land”. Refusing to grant TORs (Stage I Clearance) to the project and deciding on a site visit to all the proposed  PSP sites in the Western Ghats for which TORs have been issued prior to granting Environmental Clearance, EAC said, “These projects are located in the ecologically fragile Western Ghats and huge forest area is also involved”.

She quoted EAC as rejecting the Adanis’ TOR given on February 13, 2023 which had specifically said the project proposes to use water of the catchment of the lower reservoir for initial filling and annual recuperation of losses, pointing out, this will “impact several small rivulets draining into these reservoirs as the water will not be released downstream.”

Said Dandekar, the EAC was of the view that project proponents had “changed configuration of the project drastically which could attract more impact on the environment”,  raising concerns about “change in the total forest land required for the project with an increase of more than three times, i.e. from 24.50 ha to 88.98 ha.”

Hence, the EAC suggested submission of a fresh proposal for grant of TOR with modified pre-feasibility report (PFR) with “fresh alternative site analysis modifying the project layout with no obstruction of small rivulets in the area as the small rivulets are the key source of water for the perennial rivers in the western ghats”, and “change in project profile i.e. change in project layout, change in forest land and private land requirement.”

At the same time, the EAC  noted that  the MoEFCC had granted TOR to approximately 15 projects in the Western Ghats, but “given the region’s high environmental sensitivity”, there should be site visits by sub-committee members to several PSPs as these  are located in “the ecologically fragile Western Ghats and huge forest area is involved”. Hence, the need for a site visit “in toto wherever possible.”

In her September 25 analysis  of the project prior to the EAC move, Dandekar (photo), who had visited the project site earlier, had said, Adani Energy’s had planned the project “in a remote, densely forested area of the Western Ghats and enveloped by dam backwaters” around Tekpowale village, which “feels like a place lost in time”.

“This village”, she said, “narrowly escaped submersion from the Panshet Dam and now precariously perches on its encroaching backwaters. The Warasgaon Dam backwaters lie about seven kilometers away, with Mulshi and Temghar Dams approximately 19 kilometers distant and Pawana Dam around 48 kilometers”, adding, “The region is densely packed with dams; a mere straight-line distance of 66 kilometers from the northern-most Thokarwadi Dam to Panshet encompasses ten large dams in the Mula-Mutha Basin.”

According to Dandekar, “Unsurprisingly, Maharashtra holds the distinction of being the most dammed state in India, and this area might be the most heavily dammed within the state. Despite the proliferation of dams, upscale resorts, and urban developments like Lonavala and Lavasa encroaching upon the Western Ghats’ forests.” Yet, the region “still boasts vital community conservation areas, including sacred groves, temple forests, and remarkable community fish sanctuaries.”

Recalling her visits to Tekpowale, she said, they have “often revolved around its cherished fish sanctuary, which preserves a sacred pool devoted to Vardayini, a fierce forest goddess known as the Bestower of Boons. Surrounded by an ancient dark grove, the pool is home to sacred Mahseer fish, which villagers protect with utmost reverence. The grove, adorned with traditional garments and offerings, forms an eerie yet majestic setting.”

Pointing out that the community in the village “strictly forbids fishing in this sanctuary, believing the Mahseer bears a distinctive mark given by their goddess—similar to tales from other regions in India about fish marked by divine figures”, Dandekar noted, “Even in times of drought, the villagers refrain from drawing water from the pool, opting instead to carry it by hand as a show of respect.”

Praising this as a “community-driven conservation model”,  signaling “a successful commitment to safeguarding their sacred spaces and the biodiversity they support”, she warned, “This tranquil setting faces a dire threat. Adani Energy plans to create a 56-meter-high dam just upstream of Vardayini’s pool, resulting in the flooding of 49 hectares of dense forest within the proposed Velhe-Mulshi Conservation Reserve. This not only jeopardizes a culturally revered site but also threatens the diverse freshwater ecosystem.”

She underlined, “The 1500 MW Warasgaon-Warangi Pumped Storage Project will involve the construction of two massive dams—one in Tekpowale and another in Warangi—connected by a two-kilometer underground tunnel… Despite its proclaimed benefits, the environmental implications of such a project in a biodiversity-rich and sacred region are concerning.”

Calling the project’s pre-feasibility study “superficial” focusing “solely on economic factors while neglecting ecological realities, such as the presence of the Varadayini Fish Sanctuary”, Dandekar said, “The project would disturb not only the sacred pool in Tekpowale but also the nearby Walen Kondh Fish Sanctuary, without acknowledging its significance in project considerations.”

Asserting that the “communities like those in Tekpowale, deeply connected to their land and water, oppose any developments that threaten their heritage”, she said, “The claim that the Warasgaon-Warangi Project supports green energy initiatives is misleading”. She added, “The destruction of these sacred places is anything but eco-friendly and sustainable. As the guardians of Vardayini and her sanctuary, the villagers of Tekpowale stand resolutely against the encroachment of industry into their revered spaces.”

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Modi govt distancing from Adanis? MoEFCC ‘defers’ 1500 MW project in Western Ghats appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Farming union Swaraj India demanded the immediate withdrawal of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 notification on July 8, 2022. It expressed grave concern against the Government of India’s new rules that bypass consent and consultation from local adivasis and villagers. 

On June 28, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued a notification that the rules will be applicable to all proposals for use of non-forestry purpose. As per these new provisions, the Central Government shifts the responsibility of obtaining forest dwellers’ consent and ensuring settlement of rights under Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act to state governments. 

“The state government or Union territory administration, as the case may be, after receiving the ‘Final’ approval of the central government under Section 2 of the Act, and after fulfillment and compliance of the provisions of all other Acts and rules made there under, as applicable including ensuring settlement of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, shall issue order for diversion, assignment of lease or dereservation, as the case may be,” said the new rules. 

However, Swaraj India pointed out that this in effect permits the Government of India to clear forests before state governments have obtained the consent of forest dwellers. This infringes on their rights over their traditional forestland and violates the Forest Rights Act. The latter requires free, prior, and informed consent of the forest dwelling communities before any such project is undertaken. It is also a threat to the environment and India’s decreasing forest cover, said the West Bengal-based organisation. 

According to Land Conflict Watch member Mukta Joshi, this move can bring industries into conflict with communities and threaten their investments. Further, it can lead to coercion of communities who oppose a project. 

Basically, this is how it works. Under the 1980 FC Act and 2003 Rules, permission from the union govt is needed before forest land is used (i.e. chopped down) for non-forest purposes like mining. The MoEF grants this permission in 2 stages: in-principle consent & final approval.

— Mukta Joshi (@mukta_jo) July 7, 2022

Why must forest rights recognition be done before forest clearance? In the MoTA’s own words: “to preclude the possible destruction of existing evidence in support of claims under FRA.” That means the new rules could lead to developers forging forest dwellers’ consent.

— Mukta Joshi (@mukta_jo) July 7, 2022

“Swaraj India stands against attempts to disenfranchise tribals and forest dwelling communities from their rights over their traditional forest land. This is more preposterous when the government is celebrating the 125th birth anniversary of great tribal leader Alluri Seethrama Raju,” said Swaraj India.  Earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled the tribal leader’s statue. 

Along with the Forest Rights Act (FRA), the new rules also violate provisions of the Forest Conservation Act 1980. However, that is not surprising considering on October 2, 2021 the MoEFCC proposed amendments to the same. These amendments do away with many stringent laws requiring prior approval for development projects on forest land. 

Related:

Environmentalist demand withdrawal of changes to Biological Diversity Act
Palghar Adivasis decry ecologically-dangerous infrastructural projects
AIUFWP’s 2nd National Conference begins in New Delhi
8 years on, Tharu tribe’s struggle for land rights continues
Nearly 20 days later, MoEFCC shares FCA proposal in regional languages

The post Swaraj India decries MoEFCC’s Forest Conservation Rules 2022 notification appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the seventy-third Republic Day, the Coalition for Environmental Justice in India (CEJI) rejected the Biological Diversity Act (BDA) Amendment Bill, 2021, alleging it violates people’s interests and futures.

Environmental, social justice and democratic organisations released the joint statement on January 26, 2022 for the withdrawal of the amendment Bill proposed by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). Members said the law allows for corporate loot of natural resources.

“The Bill is a retrograde move, a brazen attempt to centralise control of India’s biodiversity conservation system and will turn biodiversity and bioresources into a lucrative field for profit maximisation by corporate and financial interests. This we are neither able to tolerate nor accept,” said members.

The MoEFCC proposed changes to the Biological Diversity Act 2002 on December 16, 2021. It then referred the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Secretary (JPC) to review the suggestions. However, the JPC on January 16, 2022, invited comments/objections to the Bill only by the end of the month.

Instead of a short-notice call for comments, the CEJI urged the JPC to initiate nationwide consultation processes to improve BDA and its implementation, enabling participation of primary stakeholders of biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge in a manner accessible to them and in their language.

“In conducting such a deeply democratic consultation, the JPC could call upon state governments, local governments, NGOs and civil society to assist. This process will take time, but it is necessary that this time is invested now to safeguard India’s biodiversity,” the CEJI said.

Highlighting the importance of the 2002 Act, it pointed out that the BDA gives due significance to the Doctrine of Public Trust – enunciated as a law of the land by the Supreme Court – for declaring natural resources as possessions of India’s citizens that is only managed by the state as a trustee. It considers the Doctrine central to the successful implementation of the law.

Moreover, the Bill calls for further centralisation of powers, whereas the existing law called upon state and local governments for biodiversity conservation, protection and its sustainable use. IT also contradicts the Constitutional 73rd Amendment (Panchayat Raj) Act, 1992, the Constitutional 74th Amendment (Nagarpalika) Act, 1992, the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Forest Rights Act 2006, said the CEJI. Accordingly, it also opposes many basic safeguards like the Principle of Intergenerational Equity, Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle.

“The proposed changes to the Act constitute a clear attempt to destroy sovereign rights and control that citizens have over their biodiversity, bio-resources and associated traditional knowledge. This right is particularly crucial for Adivasis, Dalits, farmers, fishers, vaids, hakims, nomadic and denotified tribes and other natural resource dependent peoples,” said the CEJI.

A deeply concerning aspect of the proposal is that it wants to take the BDA out of the prevailing environmental jurisprudence governed under the umbrella legislation Environment Protection Act, 1986. This means that all offences against the environment and associated rights that are considered criminal offences nowadays will be reduced to civil offenses.Similarly, it calls for dilution of the Biodiversity Management Committees mechanisms and suggests subordinating them to centrally controlled groups. This compromises their oversight to and access over bioresources. The CEJI alleged all this that only private corporations, MNCs and especially those companies involved in AYUSH industries will benefit from this.Moreover, the Bill erodes the prevailing autonomy of the National Biodiversity Authority by promoting the MoEFCC-appointed Member Secretary’s powers to be equal to the autonomous Chairperson. This would turn the autonomous institution into an executive appendage of the Ministry.

Environmentalists also asked the government to look at the issue in conjunction with regulations proposed under the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) that also disregards India’s federal governance system.The FSSAI proposals allow for the free passage of genetically modified foods into India, despite a ministerial moratorium against such food trials and cultivation since 2010. Extending direct access to such imported food across India homogenises the diverse food cultures of the country.

“In this context we record our gravest concerns that the changes proposed in regulations under FSSA are in concert with essential abrogation of the BDA and the GMO RULES of 1989,” said experts.

Abuse of environmental laws and rights

The Act was enacted in response to India becoming a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD) as it “reaffirms the sovereign rights of the States over their biological resources.” This must be seen in the context of Article 39(b), part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which clearly acknowledges “ownership and control of the material resources” is “of the community… so distributed as to best subserve the common good.” As per the Article 48(A), it is the government’s responsibility to “endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”

Environmentalists condemned the central government’s decision to propose the Bill without consulting state governments, local governments or the wider public. It has also not been translated into any of the Scheduled languages of India.

This is a recurrent move that was previously employed when introducing changes to the Forest Conservation Act and the Draft Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2020. Both these documents were translated after nationwide public outcry and (in the latter’s case) the direction of the Delhi High Court.

The CEJI claimed that is done because such Bills propose significant and highly regressive changes which the government may not want the people to know of. Such amendments, especially in the case of the BDA, extend legitimacy to several cases of biopiracy actively under consideration of the judiciary. Such dilutions will make it near impossible to hold any individual or private corporation accountable for biopiracy or bio-loot in future.

Related:

Nearly 20 days later, MoEFCC shares FCA proposal in regional languages
Climate change policies will never work until Adivasis are included: AIUFWP Roma Malik
Coastal road project: Over 50 academics bat for fisherfolk
Dhinkia: A story of perseverance against administrative oppression

The post Environmentalist demand withdrawal of changes to Biological Diversity Act appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Proposed amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 are now available in 11 regional languages including Hindi on the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) website.

On Thursday morning, the website showed versions of the proposal paper in Kannada, Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, Telugu, Malayalam, Odia, Punjabi, Manipuri, Bengali and Gujarati languages.

In a circular by the forest conservation division, officials said, “The consultation paper inviting comments of stakeholders on proposed amendment in Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has been uploaded in the Ministry’s website and PARIVESH portal in Hindi and English languages. Subsequently, this consultation paper has been translated into various regional languages and such versions have been uploaded on the above two portals.”

The Ministry said that in case of any difference in interpretation between English and any other language in which the paper has been translated, the interpretation in the English version will be followed. 

It is noteworthy that the versions came 10 days after the Ministry extended the deadline for comments to November 1. The proposal was first introduced in English on October 2, 2021 on Gandhi Jayanti – a public holiday. 

Largely, the changes propose doing away with the requirement for government approval for industrial or commercial projects in forest areas while also switching projects that are considered “non-forestry” like mining. Adivasis and environmental activists across India had criticised the government for quietly sending the proposal to state governments in English alone. This excluded many concerned communities from the decision-making stage.

This is not the first time the Ministry has discreetly suggested changes to forest laws. On Wednesday, writing for the Morning Context, Akshay Deshmane reported that the Ministry had just scrapped a previous decision to invite private entities to amend the Indian Forest Act 1927. 

According to experts, these amendments would have given the central government more control over forested areas that nowadays enjoy local maintenance and conservation efforts. However, unlike the other forest Acts, the law bestows powers to the state government while dismissing forest-dwellers from decisions regarding the use and demarcation of forests. According to the aforementioned Morning Context report, the ministry has not given up on amending the law,just done away with the idea of bringing in private entities.

Related:

Jal, Jungle, Zameen: Chhattisgarh Adivasis march 300kms to oppose coal mining projects
Dilution of environmental laws, a persistent tactic: AIUFWP
India farmers, Adivasis and forest dwellers condemn FCA draft changes
Forest Conservation Act: GoI suggests fundamental changes Act, despite widespread objections

The post Nearly 20 days later, MoEFCC shares FCA proposal in regional languages appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on May 8, took suo moto cognizance of the styrene gas leak that occurred on May 7 in Vizag’s LG Polymers plant located in R.R. Venkatpuram village. The gas leak claimed more than 10 lives and affected over 1000 persons in the vicinity. The NGT bench headed by Chairperson Adarsh Kumar Goel with two other members, Justice SK Singh and Dr. Nagin Nanda, identified the damage this may have caused to the environment and habitat and imposed strict liability of the incident on LG Polymers.

The order dated May 8 of the Tribunal constituted a 6 member committee headed by Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy, former judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court and further comprising of V Rama Chandra Murthy, Former Vice Chancellor, Andhra University; Pulipati King, Head of Chemical Engineering Department, Andhra University; Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB); Director, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Technology and Head of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Vizag.

The Committee’s findings are a sharp indictment on the management as also the statutory monitoring mechanisms. Specifically, the Committee recommends that Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) along with CPCB and states PCBs need to revamp monitoring mechanisms and need to prioritise the projects where potential environmental degradation is high on account of nature of activity as well as area being ecologically sensitive. Monitoring must be twice a year and not once in four-five years. Inadequate compliance mechanisms defeat environmental principle of sustainable development says the Committee in its findings.

The District magistrate, Vishakhapatnam, and Regional Office, Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (PCB) were directed to provide logistical support to the Committee to enable their fact-finding and reporting. The Committee was directed to specifically report on the following:

a. The sequence of events;

b. Causes of failure and persons and authorities responsible therefor;

c. Extent of damage to life, human and non-human; public health; and environment – including, water, soil, air;

d. Steps to be taken for compensation of victims and restitution of the damaged property and environment, and the cost involved;

e. Remedial measures to prevent recurrence

f. Any other incidental or allied issues found relevant.

The committee, filed an interim report on May 17 in which it opined that, “the Company did not take proper care of the storage tank resulting in auto polymerization of styrene releasing excess heat which escaped from the goose-neck and dip hatch in the form of vapour. It is also mentioned that the unit was operating without the requisite EC. The State Pollution Control Board (PCB) had no clarity in the matter while granting the statutory consents without EC.”

The Committee observed that there is rampant violation of Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions and that in absence of adequate mechanisms such violations are bound to continue defeating the environmental principle of precautionary and sustainable development. The Committee further noted the observations of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Environmental Clearance and Post Clearance Monitoring 2016 in which reasons for shortfalls in monitoring of environmental parameters were attributed to inadequate staff, inadequate database, not assigning clear responsibility for post EC monitoring, absence of monitoring at regular intervals particularly for critically polluted areas.

Cause of incident

Further, the report stated that the Committee was of the view that the leakage was cause due to the following reasons:

1. Insufficient Tertiary Butyl Catechol (IBC, used as inhibitor to ureic/polymerization at lower temperatures) concentration in styrene tank due to unavailability of IBC in the plant.

2. There is no monitoring system for dissolved oxygen in the vapour space which might have fallen down below 6%.

3. The tank has no provision of monitoring temperatures at lop layers of the storage.

4. Refrigeration system was not being operated fir 24 hours.

5. Gross human failure and negligence of the Person in-charge of the plant and maintenance personnel of the storage tanks.

Cause of failures on part of LG Polymers

The report also narrates the shockingly irresponsible decision of the management of the industrial unit which, after being closed on March 24 due to the nationwide lockdown, decided to resume operations on May 7, without due precautions being taken (“Causes of failures and authorities responsible thereof”. The leakage started in early hours of May 7.

The Committee pointed out step by step, how the leakage was caused due to chemical reactions in the tank and established the liability of the industry, which is reflected in the following points, which are extracts from the report:

The leaked tank does not have any provision for measuring the vapour space temperature. Due to this, building-up of temperatures in top surface could not noticed by the industry. This reflects the clear cut case of negligence on Industry part.

The unit’s inability to access personnel protective equipment in a timely manner, safety response preparedness of the site had impact in the early stages of safety operations.

The public siren system also could not be activated as it was manual and in an area rendered inaccessible by the vapour cloud else people in surrounding areas could have been alerted quickly and lives saved.

Mitigation of the impact could have been more effective had the chillers servicing Tank M6 been running.

There was also no automated sprinkler arrangement for vapour loss as this had never been anticipated; the fire water sprinklers had to be manually activated.

With the experience world over of Styrene, it takes considerable amount of idle time to have polymerization inside tank if effective inhibition and chilling is maintained. The unit failed to assess this situation due lack in handling experience by trained man-power

The report concluded that the root cause of the leakage to be lack of experience of LG Polymers India and their Korean principal. LG Chem, in monitoring and maintaining full tanks of styrene that were idled for a long period of several weeks without operation.

Further, the Committee also pointed out the “accountability for lapses on part of the Industry (LG Polymers), which rest with Managing Director of the unit, Certified Safety Officer, Safety Department, and Production Department. The role of issuing necessary safety certificate to the industry, the periodic inspections is the primary responsibility of Department of Industries, Factories and Boilers.”

Recommendations

It is Statutory Bodies that need to follow due dillgence. Have they ? NEERI has been asked to conduct an inquiry to calculate the actual cost for environmental damage and restoration so the same may be recovered from the industry. Further the Committee also suggested that the government, apart from the Rs. 1 crore compensation announced for the families of the deceased, should also compensate victims on ventilator support with Rs. 10 lakhs, and victims hospitalized but not on life-support with Rs. 1 lakh each and this will be in addition to the entire expenses of their hospitalization, critical care and recovery, which will be borne by the government.

The report further gave a long comprehensive list of recommendations for remedial measures to avoid recurrence which included hazard identification and evaluation in the community, Preparation of Guiding Principles for Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response for onsite and offsite emergency plans, detailed study of the risk assessment and disaster management studies and so on.

Further the Committee also conducted a public consultation meeting with NGOs and residents of affected villages and the some pertinent suggestions were also incorporated in the report. Some of these suggestions include:

• Compensation to be paid by both company and government
• Company to conduct local public awareness campaigns about Do’s/ Don’ts during emergency
• Material auditing, safety inspection reports shall be made online for public
• All the affected families should be given identity cards and Health cards by the Government and the expenditure on medical bills shall be borne by the unit.
• The L.G. Polymers company management should be prosecuted under relevant sections Cr.P.C.
• All companies should have Public Addressing system, so that the public can be warned during the Disaster
• All factories should have mitigation plans for gas leakage solvent fire and should have emergency ward with medical staff for treatment

Responsibility of Ministry and government agencies

The report also highlights how the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) along with CPCB and states PCBs need to revamp monitoring mechanisms and need to prioritise the projects where potential environmental degradation is high on account of nature of activity as well as area being ecologically sensitive; whereby monitoring will have to be more intensive and at higher frequency. The Committee stated that the present scenario of monitoring once in 4.5 years and planned modification resulting in monitoring in 2.5 years is farce and does not meet the requirement   of law by any standards.

The Committee also stated in the report that MoEF&CC even failed tomention the percentage of compliance since there is no such data available with them. The Committee viewed these remedial actions as inalienable constitutional obligations. The report stressed upon, over and over against, on the importance of strong compliance mechanisms for EC which is a precautionary principle in tandem with right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. “We place on record our disapproval for the present sorry state-of-affairs and expect meaningful improvement,” said the report. The Committee recommended that all Category A projects be monitored at least twice a year and the rest be monitored at least once a year.

The observations of the Bench

On the hearing held on June 1, the bench took this report on record and observed that the company operated without Environmental Clearance (EC) and the State PCB on account of its ignorance of law or otherwise gave ‘Consent to Establish’ and ‘Consent to Operate’ in violation of law. It further observed that burden of proof is on the company to show that it has no liability, since overwhelming material point towards its liability.

While stressing on remedial measures, the bench took the view that there is need for rehabilitation plan utilizing the interim and further compensation and “regulatory framework needs to be reviewed and strengthened, apart from identifying steps to ensure compliance of laid down safety norms and laying down further norms and procedure to avoid recurrence of such failures in future”.

The bench gave further directions as follows:

• The amount of Rs. 50 crores deposited by the Company with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam will stand appropriated towards part liability and interim compensation to be spent for restoration of the environment and compensation for victims in accordance with the restoration plan to be prepared.
• Restoration plan may be prepared by a Committee comprising two representatives each of MoEF&CC, CPCB and three representatives of State Government to be named by the Chief Secretary within two months from today
• Final compensation to be assessed by Committee comprising representatives of MoEF&CC, CPCB and NEERI, which shall be constituted within 2 weeks and it shall give its report within 2 months.
• The Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh may identify and take appropriate action against persons responsible for failure of law in permitting the Company to operate without statutory clearances within two months and give a report to this Tribunal
• If the Company decides to recommence operations, the same shall be brought to the notice of the Tribunal
• The MoEF&CC may also constitute an Expert Committee to suggest ways and means to revamp monitoring mechanism to check and prevent violation of environmental norms and preventing any such recurrence in future in any of the establishments dealing with hazardous chemicals; an Action Taken Report to be submitted in this regard within 3 months.

The next hearing in the case is now on November 3.

The complete order can be read here.

Related:

Vizag gas leak: High Powered Committee meets stakeholders, begins probe
LG Polymers India has Absolute Liability: NGT on Vizag Gas Leak
NGT imposes 25 crore interim penalty in Dahej chemical factory blast incident: Gujarat
The price of profit, OIL’s misadventure threatens Tinsukhia’s reserve forests & wild life sanctuaries: Assam

The post Management Irresponsibility plus weak monitoring by MoEF&CC: Committee, Vizag gas leak appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is a policy move and development that has sent tremours down environmental human rights activists. The conservation/ no-mining zone in Saranda and Chaibasa in West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand may be opened for iron ore mining. The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) has decided to form a committee to explore the prospect of opening up these zones.

The Saranda forests in the hilly regions of West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand are dense forests that stretch over an area of 82,000 ha. These forests were one of the most pristine in India, and are the largest Sal forests in the country. They support a large variety of floral and faunal biodiversity, and are an important elephant corridor. An expert panel appointed by the Government of India in 2011, identified 480 new species of fauna and flora in the region. The core area of these forests are also ancestral home to about 56 villages which are mostly composed of the Ho and MundaAdivasi communities. The 36,000 strong tribal communities have lived sustainably within the forests for centuries and have played a key role in the maintenance and protection of the forests.

The Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MSPM) which came into existence in June, 2018 may be amended for the purpose of opening up the no-mining zones. Earlier, there have already been a flurry of modifications made to the MPSM like merging Zone I and II mining areas, removal of the clause for Impact Assessment and scrapping of the role of the forest department in creating the mining plan. These modifications also opened up mineral blocks in the no-mining areas of Ankua and Chidia. In the MPSM, the allowing of the 13 mines in this area was dependent on the government. However, MoEF has deleted this clause to bring these under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR).

Reportedly, the Jharkhand Chief Secretary, DK Tiwari wrote to the MOEF&CC in March 2019 and had sought a reassessment study to open up the conservation zone for mining.

Tiwari wrote to CK Mishra saying, “The conservation zone is a repository to huge iron ore resources and so the stipulation in the MSPM report for complete ban on mining in conservation zone should be revisited”.

“The reassessment study requested by the state may be carried out by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education with representation from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad in the study team,” the MOEF&CC wrote to Tiwari.

Per Down to Earth, the Jharkhand Chief Minister, Raghubar Das also wrote to the ministry seeking permission for Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL). He had argued that MSPM has affected SAIL financially as it had made huge investments to mine that area. Based on this, “the CM has asked the ministry to dilute the MSPM,” a state official told Down to Earth on condition of anonymity.

The MPSM was finalised in June 2018, soon after, the state government wrote to the MoEF&CC requesting to amend the plan on August 14.
As per the MSPM, the Saranda forest was divided into three zones- mining zone I (approximately 10,670 hectares), mining zone II (approximately 2,161 ha) and conservation zone/no-mining zone (approximately 43,000 ha). The no-mining area has mining proposals from SAIL, JSW Group, Vedanta Ltd and others. 

A committee comprising MoEF&CC, Union Ministry of Mines, Union Ministry of Steel, Union Ministry of Coal and the Jharkhand government was created by MoEF&CC to look into modifications/ amendments to the MSPM. On February 4, the committee met and amended some provisions of the MSPM. It did away with the clause that mining zone II can only be accessed after the ores in mining zone I were exhausted. A detailed study was proposed by the state government. The purpose of the study was to undertake the reassessment of the biodiversity richness and ecosystem services rendered by the conservation area so as to extract iron ore to meet the future steel demands.

“Concern for SAIL is just a front, the state government wants to open up the no-go mining area because a major chunk of the good quality iron ore is just lying there,” the official said.

In 2014, the MoEF had stopped giving fresh mining clearances in the area after the Shah Commission report found major violation of the MMDR by the mining companies in the area. The MoEF had mandated that fresh lease would only be given after the MPSM had been created.  

The Justice M. B. Shah Commission submitted its ‘First Report on illegal mining of iron and manganese ores (four volumes) in the State of Jharkhand’ October 14, 2013. In its first report on illegal mining in Jharkhand, the Commission said that despite a delay in renewal of the mining licence by the Jharkhand Government, miners continued to exploit the area leased to them without fresh green approvals. The Commission hadfoundand highlighted illegal production in 26 iron and manganese ore leases. These leases include iron ore mines of, among others, Tata Steel, Steel Authority of India Ltd, Rungta Mines, Usha Martin, Rameshwar Jute Mills, and Singhbhum Minerals Co.

As a response, the MoEF&CC awarded the carrying capacitystudy in Saranda Forest Division to Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Dehradun to suggest annual capacity for iron ore production. The ICFRE submitted its report on March 28, 2016, which was again examined by a committee constituted by the MoEFF&CC on April 4, 2016.Based on the committee’s recommendations the ICFRE report was accepted by the competent authority in the MoEF& CC. The ICFRE study was conducted to comply with the recommendations of Shah Commission of Enquiry.

Some of the observations included, “It was commented that IBM has approved mining schemes to increase production during the mining plan period without application of mind to the ingredient”

Further that, “For modification of mining plan, conditions mentioned in the Rules are required to be satisfied which was totally ignored and created multi fold environmental hazards to the Saranda Forest. The conditions have become more aggravated, since the mines are located in clusters and transport through common roads used by them. The roads cannot sustain this load and remain always in dilapidated conditions beyond repair, as observed by the Commission during its visit.”

In view of many such grave violations, the MPSM came up with an underlying principle “to divert minimum forest area for mining and producing maximum output depending upon the approved mining plan and Environment clearance (EC) under EP Act 1986”

The plan gave detailed outlines of forest area, conditions for sustainable mining etc.

However, the current BJP government in the state is all set to dilute many of these environment friendly provisions and make matters worse for one of the densest forests in India, a home to elephants and forest dwelling peoples.
 

The post Black clouds over Saranda: Centre set to open up 43000 ha of Jharkhand’s forests for mining appeared first on SabrangIndia.