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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

een left out of the scope of REIA and other baseline data. As a result of partial EIA, the full environmental impact of the entire project has been undermined. On a clarification sought by one of the committee members (Dr Suresh), the Director of POSCO (Mr. Kim) confirmed that comprehensive EIA both for steel plant and captive port was completed by July, 2007. The Regional office of MoEF, Bhubaneswar as well as the Orissa Government informed that copies of the comprehensive EIA were delivered by hand only in October 2010 after the clarification from the member of this committee. Submitting such a basic and critical report three years after the clearances is only an empty formality. 26. The committee members are of the strong view that MoEF should not have given environment clearance for part of the project (4 MTPY) when all other components and infrastructure of the project such as land, displacement of people, ecological destruction, port construction etc have aimed for full project, that is, 12 million tons. This is especially so when the expansion plans are not sometime in the distant future but contemplated at the rate of increase of 4 million tonnes every two years. POSCO should have been asked to apply for clearance of total capacity. Otherwise, the logical step would have been to restrict the requirement of land and the size of the port to the requirements of a 4 MTPY capacity plant. It puts a question mark on the scientific and technical prudence of the MoEF. 27. In a recent report the MoEF has come out with an environmental pollution index called as Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) to help in categorising the industrial clusters in terms of priority of planning needs for interventions. Under this report Paradeep has a CEPI score of 69.26 which shows that it is a severely polluted area, just bordering on the CEPI of a critically polluted industrial cluster. The concern that the Paradip area is already polluted from existing industries was also raised during the public hearing but unfortunately it was never addressed by any of the decision making authorities. 28. The Technical Committee of the Orissa State Pollution Control Board raised many issues of substantial importance specially related to air pollution which curiously have not been followed up to its logical end. The records supplied to us do not reveal that these issues were ever addressed before the clearances were given. However, even before these queries have been satisfactorily answered by the project proponent, the company has been recommended for clearances and issue of Consent to Establish. This is a serious abdication of statutory responsibility by the Orissa State Pollution Control Board.
29. Concerns regarding the impact of the POSCO captive port on the existing Paradip Port have been repeatedly voiced by the authorities as well as by the public. The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India appears to have a different view. A question about adverse effect of this captive private port was raised in the Lok Sabha to the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways during December 2005. The then Minister in charge had replied “ the proposed minor port for POSCO steel plant may lead to severe erosion along the coastline posing a threat to the port facilities at Paradeep”. The Minister also stated that the Orissa Government has been urged to undertake a detailed study regarding erosion if they decide to develop a minor port for POSCO and should associate Government of India and Paradeep port with such studies. Unfortunately the EAC and MoEF did not call for the study report before giving clearance in 2007. 30. The Committee is of the firm view that the Public Hearing held on 15.4.2007 was not in compliance with the rules. The authorities failed to provide copies of the EIA to panchayats; all the project affected persons were not given opportunity to be heard. It was held in Kujanga about 15 km away from the affected villages. During the hearing, many people complained that because of the prohibitive distance, many villagers could not travel to participate in the Public Hearing. The committee was informed that there was presence of a strong police force at the venue of the public hearing a day prior to the hearing itself. This served as a deterrent to free participation by local villagers, who were opposing the project. Other project affected people like traditional fishing community and farmers were not covered by the public hearing. The social impact of the project was also not discussed. Project proponent has failed to answer all the objections raised during the public hearing. The EAC has failed to apply its mind to the objections raised by various authorities and the public and have also failed to consider the available material on record. The EAC has also failed to record any reasons in respect of accepting or rejecting the objections raised but instead gave clearance. Such mechanical clearance makes a mockery of rule of law and procedural safeguards. 31. The integrated steel plant has a huge water requirement. As per the Rapid EIA, the water requirement will be met from Jobra Barrage over the Mahanadi River by laying an 86 kilometer long pipeline. POSCO has already taken an approval from the Department of Water Resources, Government of Orissa, for
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: have worked with people, to help in
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 and 20: government to hear all the applicat
Page 21 and 22: II. Recommendations of the Central
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?