Panaji, AUGUST 6-The Goa Bachao Abhiyan(GBA), people's umbrella movement spearheading cause of appropriate land use planning in the State of Goa has expressed deep concern with planning and environment in Goa and sees the new draft Environment Impact Assessment(EIA) notification as a danger to the citizens right to planning.
The GBA rejects the skewed EIA 2020 notification and demands a credible policy in sync with the latest scientific understanding of environment in the light of local carrying capacity and climate change.
A quote from the National Green Tribunal Application used as a preamble to the EIA 2020 calls for ‘Strengthening’ the monitoring mechanism for compliance of conditions of Prior Environment Clearance.
EIA 2020 proceeds to build on exactly the opposite. It seems that the entire purpose of this document is to detail out mass exemptions of some of the most damaging construction and extractive industries from scrutiny under a category called ‘B2’. It is defined in para 3. Definitions:as point (41).
"We strongly oppose the category of ‘B2’ that receives blanket Prior Environment Permission and is exempted from being placed before the Appraisal committee. It is understood that a large number of projects listed under ‘B2’ have caused problems in the State of Goa already. Mining Lease areas ≤5 hectares or Construction projects with >50,000sqmtrs and ≤ 1,50,000sqmtrs of built up area are just some of the categories to be exempted from scrutiny,sid Convenor of GBA Sabina Martins on Thursday.
This document is further designed to keep public, custodians of their environment, out of the picture by exempting them from public hearings in most cases, and worse, not including them in the list of potential complainants in section 22. Dealing of Violations cases. How is this conceivable as part of an EIA policy?
The Application Form-1/1A ignores the necessary inclusion of scientific reports and scrutiny from committees under enlightened central Acts, such as the Biodiversity, Wetland and Groundwater Acts.
Environment does not differentiate on the basis of human definitions, any large scale action has ripple effects that need to be understood and intelligently mitigated. We do not need a document that builds a case for more suffering and economic loss due to disasters that will surely follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placed Ad verbatim below are the sections that are a problem with the corresponding response in blue italics.
AND WHEREAS, the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in Original Application Number 837/2018 in the matter of Original Application Number 837/2018 Sandeep Mittal vs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors, has held that the Ministry shall strengthen the monitoring mechanism for compliance of conditions of Prior Environment Clearance.
3. Definitions:
(41) “Prior Environment Permission (hereinafter referred to as ‘prior-EP’)” means
the permission or consent of Regulatory Authority for carrying out the proposed
project listed in the Schedule in respect of Category ‘B2’ that are not required to
be placed before Appraisal Committee as specified in the Schedule;
Not acceptable and renders the entire exercise of the EIA notification and its aims invalid
4. Requirement of Prior Environment Clearance or Prior Environment Permission:-
(3) It is however clarified that ‘construction work’ for the purpose of this notification shall not include securing the land by fencing or compound wall, temporary shed for security guard(s); levelling of the land without any tree felling; geo-technical investigations if any required for the project.
Allowing such changes to the landscape BEFORE any clearance allows for squatting and land grab. Such actions as described already damage the ground ecology and is not acceptable. Fencing or a compound wall blocks wildlife movement, levelling of land requires bringing in of heavy machinery and disturbs the natural biodiversity besides not taking into account hills and sloping land for which ‘levelling’ would mean flattening and changing the topography. Security Guards mean placement of humans, and additional supporting infrastructure to support them such as roads traffic and such. All these measures already change the habitat, skewing any possible studies or assessment. Counter intuitive.
13. Preparation of Environment Impact Assessment Report:
(2) Baseline data shall be collected for one season other than monsoon for EIA report in respect of all projects other than River Valley Projects. However, the baseline data of monsoon season shall also be required to be collected, in case of such requirement being prescribed by the Appraisal committee while granting the ToR.
Why is the monsoon season being left out of the EIA as if it doesn’t exist? Monsoon is a critical season in India, and resulting water run-off can lead to erosion or flooding or washing of toxins down-slope, in fact it is a season where most damage is caused. A full season needs to be accounted for.
14. Public Consultation:
(2) All Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B1’ projects of new or expansion proposals or modernization with capacity increase more than 50 percent shall undertake Public Consultation.
Very dangerous clause.‘New’ projects may be in a different location altogether and represent upto 50 hectare of a mining lease area. 50 hectare ( 125 acres ) whether in a new location or as an expansion is a substantial size which can destroy springs, rivers, catchment areas and forests that sustain communities and wildlife. It allows breaking up of proposals to below 50% and staggering them so that expansion many more times the same is unchecked, with potential to cause huge damage on unsuspecting citizens.
(7)In case the SPCB or UTPCC concerned does not undertake and complete the public hearing within the specified period, as above, the Regulatory Authority shall engage another public agency or authority which is not subordinate to the Regulatory Authority, to complete the process within a further period of forty working days, as per procedure laid down in this Notification.
What is the qualification and nature of this ‘public agency or authority which is not subordinate to the Regulatory Authority’, that can conduct a public hearing? Department of Minerals and mines?PWD? What guarantee is there that the agency chosen is not sympathetic to the project proponent.Adequate safeguards and definitions need to respond to this.
(8) If the public agency or authority nominated under the sub-clause (7) above reports to the Regulatory Authority concerned that owing to the local situation, it is not possible to conduct the public hearing in a manner which will enable the views of the concerned local persons to be freely expressed, it shall report the facts in detail to the concerned Regulatory Authority, which may, after due consideration of the report and other reliable information that it may have, decide that the public consultation in the
case need not include the public hearing.
This is an escape route. Often vested interests hijack meetings and cause disturbance with the express intention to intimidate people and not allow voices to be heard. This being the norm in many places, what safeguards are there to make sure this does not happen, and if it does, should not be reason to skip the public hearing altogether.
17. Grant or Rejection of Prior Environment Clearance:
(3) In the event that the decision of the Regulatory Authority is not communicated to the applicant within the period specified in sub-clause (2) above, the applicant may proceed as if the prior-EC sought for has been granted or denied by the Regulatory Authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Appraisal Committee.
Unclear sentence, allows a loophole to proceed with project simply on silence from the Regulatory Authority.
19. Validity of Prior Environment Clearance or Prior Environment Permission:
1. Construction or Installation Phase:
Refers to completion of construction or installation within 10 years to 50 years in case of mining. Better served on the proposed start date of the projects within 2 years of receipt of clearance as environmental issues change drastically with climate change and will need re-assessment.
22. Dealing of Violation cases:
(1) The cognizance of the violation shall be made on the:-
(a)suomoto application of the project proponent; or
(b)reporting by any Government Authority; or
(c) found during the appraisal by Appraisal Committee; or
(d)found during the processing of application, if any, by the Regulatory Authority.
The public/citizens have been deliberately left out where it is in their interest to see to proper functioning of units. The Constitution of India has placed responsibility for environment on every citizen, and leaving them out of the cognizance of violations is malafide.
25. Appeal against the Prior Environment Clearance or Prior Environment Permission
granted by the Regulatory Authority.
(1) Any appeal against the prior-EC or prior-EP, as the case may be, granted by the
Regulatory Authority, shall lie with the National Green Tribunal, if preferred, within a
period of thirty days as prescribed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010.
Provided that the National Green Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within said period, allow it to be
filed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, within a further
period not exceeding sixty days.
The first part of the clause makes no sense as it uses the word ‘preferred’, within ‘thirty days’ and seeks to override the National Green Tribunals appeal period of 60 days.
26. Exception of Projects:
The following cases shall not require prior-EC or prior-EP, namely:-
(1) Extraction of ordinary clay or sand by manual mining, by the Kumhars (Potter) toprepare earthen pots, lamp, toys, etc. as per their customs;
(2) Extraction of ordinary clay or sand by manual mining, by earthen tile makers who prepare earthen tiles;
(3) Removal of sand deposits on agricultural field after flood by farmers;
(4) Customary extraction of sand and ordinary earth from sources situated in Gram Panchayat for personal use or community work in village;
……
(14) Solar Photo Voltaic ( PV ) Power projects, Solar Thermal Power Plants and development of Solar Parks etc.
……….
(18) Industrial Estate with project area below 500 hectares and not housing any industry of category ‘A’ or ‘B1’ or ‘B2’ project listed in the Schedule;…
(40) …..
Exempting categories without a scientific basis, size and structure makes the whole exercise of EIA a fraud. Environment does not differentiate between Solar Parks and Industrial Estates, and damage from careless development has cost far more than the projects itself.
This is a mischievous and illogical list, that exempts mega-projects such as ‘Solar Thermal Power projects,’ with no boundary conditions imposed, and ‘Industrial estates with project area below 500 hectares’, alongside non-issues such as ‘Removal of sand deposits on agricultural field after flood by farmers’.
Appendix – II and III
FORM-1/1A
This adds as a requirement at the end as a note, the involvement of State Coastal Zone Management Authority in case of proximity tidal action/coast and the recommendation or comments of Chief Wildlife Warden in case of proximity to sanctuaries, however ignores the necessary inclusion of scientific reports and scrutiny from committees under enlightened central Acts, such as the Biodiversity, Wetland and Groundwater Acts. Inclusion of the these reports are a necessity.(eom)
No comments:
Post a Comment