Majority Report of the Committee Constituted to ... - Forest Rights Act

More documents

Recommendations

Info

clearance to the steel plant on July 19, 2007 (vide letter no J-11011/ 285/ 2007-IA II) (Annexure A-6). V. Police action and reports of human rights violations. 9. On November 27-28th, 2007 several clashes took place between state administration and the people opposing the POSCO steel plant near Balithuta cross roads where thousands of villagers gathered together to protest peacefully (Nov 27–29). There were violent incidents between those opposing POSCO and those supporting POSCO. Section 144 was declared. A number of people were injured and many were arrested on charges of inciting violence. Several FIRs were filed (based on charges of inciting violence and anti- government activities) against the leaders of the Anti-POSCO movement and police contingents were stationed in public buildings in these different villages, excepting Dhinkia, which continued to remain under blockade. On Dec 5th, 2007 Dr B.D Sharma, former Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Tribes visited the area but was turned back by armed groups reportedly with the knowledge of police. Dr B.D Sharma and Kuldip Nayyer wrote a letter of protest to Hon’ble Justice Rajender Babu, Chairperson of NHR Commission on 27 Dec, 2007 regarding the violations of human rights in these villages. They lodged complaints against different public servants (named) for abuse of power (Annexure A 7). Part B Forest Conservation Act and implementation of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 I. Application for diversion of forest land for non forest purpose in the project area. 10. Under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, any use of forest land for non-forest purposes requires clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. It was therefore mandatory for POSCO to get a forest clearance for diversion of 1253.255 hectares of forest land which formed part of the area required for the integrated steel plant and captive port. According to the procedure set down in the Forest Conservation Act the proposal was considered by the Forest Advisory Committee under MOEF on Aug 9, 2007 (Annexure A 8). This committee recommended the grant of forest clearance.
II. Recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court. 11. The project simultaneously came under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court as per its April 27, 2007 order (Annexure A 9) according to which all fresh decisions of the FAC would be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the TN Godavarman vs. Thirumulpad case. The Court sought the comments of Central Empowered Committee (CEC) set up as a monitoring body by the Court. The CEC on 14th Nov, 2007 (Annexure A 10) made two important recommendations- i) The CEC was of the view that instead of piecemeal diversion of forest land for the project, it would be appropriate that the total forest land required for the project including for mining is assessed after considering the ecological importance of the area, number of trees required to be felled, adequacy and effectiveness of the R&R plan for the project affected persons and benefits accruing to the state. The diversion of forest land for the steel plant, without taking a decision for the linked uses particularly the mining project may not be in order. ii) Due to the large number of trees to be felled (2.8 lakhs) the CEC suggested that an independent expert committee should visit the site in order to assess the impact and suggest mitigation measures. 12. Subject to the compliance of the above observations the CEC recommended the diversion of forest land. The Supreme Court through it’s order dated 8th Aug, 2008 sent the proposal back to the MOEF to consider granting forest clearance; it remained silent on the issue of piece meal diversion of forest land for different components of POSCO’s integrated steel plant. ‘In principle’ clearance was granted by the Ministry on September 18th, 2008 (Annexure A 11). The project was subsequently granted final clearance on Dec 29, 2009. III. The enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 13. In December 2006, Parliament passed the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 which came into operation on 1st January, 2008. After this date any forest clearance should have been given after the action required
Page 1 and 2: Majority Report of the Committee Co
Page 3 and 4: governments were asked to provide c
Page 5 and 6: for claims after constitution of FR
Page 7 and 8: have worked with people, to help in
Page 9 and 10: 29. Concerns regarding the impact o
Page 11 and 12: coordinates it would be impossible
Page 13 and 14: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREFACE CONTENTS
Page 15 and 16: as a whole (as opposed to for the i
Page 17 and 18: INTRODUCTION- Time Line of Events P
Page 19: government to hear all the applicat
Page 23 and 24: V. Forest clearance given without c
Page 25 and 26: These Palli Sabha proceedings only
Page 27 and 28: ii) Investigation and ascertainment
Page 29 and 30: The Sairat income of the estate was
Page 31 and 32: V. Rights of `encroachers’ not se
Page 33 and 34: in the Schedule annexed hereto whic
Page 35 and 36: 9. Karonj Pongamia glabra 10. Sanar
Page 37: subdivision is supplied with betel
Page 40 and 41: 5. Aquaculture Ponds 0.79 0.20 6. A
Page 42 and 43: are interpreted as the remnants of
Page 44 and 45: VI. Impact of loss of coastal mangr
Page 46 and 47: to keep them at a middle income cla
Page 48 and 49: 25. Another source of income is fro
Page 50 and 51: vi) Status of ownership showed that
Page 52 and 53: v) All families in these villages (
Page 54 and 55: SECTION 3 Forest Rights and the For
Page 56 and 57: (4) He goes on to say that under su
Page 58 and 59: one must note that this is not limi
Page 60 and 61: proviso to section 29(3) and theref
Page 62 and 63: 20. It must first be noted that whe
Page 64 and 65: obtained by the resident tenants at
Page 66 and 67: of Polanga lies within the project
Page 68 and 69: esolutions in the registers but onl
Page 70 and 71:
53. In light of the above, the Comm
Page 72 and 73:
(4) District Welfare Officer (5) Th
Page 74 and 75:
68. It is not clear if the resoluti
Page 76 and 77:
anywhere in the State after June 20
Page 78 and 79:
- Both points have certified by the
Page 80 and 81:
3) Finally, the certification of co
Page 82 and 83:
98. The Committee finds that, even
Page 84 and 85:
112. The Orissa government's takeov
Page 86 and 87:
extent to which the Orissa R & R Po
Page 88 and 89:
(wherever applicable) in the Commit
Page 90 and 91:
18. Approximately 32 villages, most
Page 92 and 93:
Majority Report of the POSCO Enquir
Page 94 and 95:
the minor port. It is against this
Page 96 and 97:
12. The tests for evaluating adequa
Page 98 and 99:
Paradeep port area in a region desc
Page 100 and 101:
26. The proposed project is to set
Page 102 and 103:
33. The Schedule to the 2006 Notifi
Page 104 and 105:
August 2006 (Annexure E - 3 ) as pe
Page 106 and 107:
een annexed to the main text.” On
Page 108 and 109:
54.The committee members are of the
Page 110 and 111:
fragile coastal area which has repe
Page 112 and 113:
Board should stipulate appropriate
Page 114 and 115:
67. In the Letter No. WP-IWS-135/07
Page 116 and 117:
ii) Coastal Regulation Zone map ind
Page 118 and 119:
78. As far as the impact on the Pra
Page 120 and 121:
from the site. Since mangrove veget
Page 122 and 123:
potential hazardous units in this r
Page 124 and 125:
photographs and voucher would be pr
Page 126 and 127:
a) The project is highly significan
Page 128 and 129:
have not been followed through by t
Page 130 and 131:
dispensed with in the peculiar fact
Page 132 and 133:
conduct of public hearings is elabo
Page 134 and 135:
n Impact Identificatio n Mitigation
Page 136 and 137:
hazards and affect their livelihood
Page 138 and 139:
ecause of other industries in the a
Page 140 and 141:
2 Dredging would affect Atharbanki
Page 142 and 143:
6 Dredging of sand dumping it in th
Page 144 and 145:
were accepted or negatived. Failure
Page 146 and 147:
118. As per the Interim Operational
Page 148 and 149:
Para 14.0 Para 15.0 Par a 15. 0 Par
Page 150 and 151:
Director, Department of Disinvestme
Page 152 and 153:
Officials has committed any mistake
Page 154 and 155:
For these amongst other reasons, th
Page 156 and 157:
Introduction Section 6 Compliance o
Page 158 and 159:
Some activities are permissible wit
Page 160 and 161:
provided by POSCO-India Pvt Ltd and
Page 162 and 163:
5th December, 1989; except transfer
Page 164 and 165:
Location of slag yard in CRZ area p
Page 166 and 167:
that any of these issues were discu
Page 168 and 169:
In view of the above observations t
Page 170 and 171:
Conclusions and Recommendations Par
Page 172 and 173:
9. Though the MoEF is not the nodal
Page 174 and 175:
concerned authorities to such poten
Page 176 and 177:
As this report has demonstrated, wh
Page 178 and 179:
A. Preparation of EIA. 1. EIA shoul
Page 180 and 181:
e available to members of public el
Page 182 and 183:
REFERENCES / ANNEXURES Annexure No.
Page 184 and 185:
2010 Report. A-26 July 27 th , U.N.
Page 186 and 187:
FRA and compliance. C-7 July, 2004
Page 188 and 189:
Ghauj Jungle, Plot Nos. 1293 & 1294
Page 190 and 191:
Members in Bhubaneshwar E - 18 4.10
Page 192 and 193:
Annexure - H : CRZ serious concerns
Page 194:
Finance Minister, GoO. Note : The c
show all

Majority Report of the Committee Constituted to ... - Forest Rights Act

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?