Skip to main content

Demand for mandatory environmental nod for all river port, terminal, jetty projects

Counterview Desk
Fifty-five concerned citizens, including environmentalists, social activists, researchers and professionals from diverse fields, led by development expert Shripad Dharmadhikary of the Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, Pune, have written an open letter to Dr Harsh Vardhan, Minister for Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC),Government of India, asking him to ensure that Environmental Clearance (EC) process is made mandatory for inland waterways projects.
Referring to the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) of November 1, 2018, which asks MoEFCC to submit its opinion by 31st January 31, 2019 on whether EC in respect to inland waterways is required or not, the letter insists, waterways have “huge adverse environmental and social impacts” on the morphology, habitats, ecology, flora and fauna of rivers and other waterbodies, and livelihoods of communities depending on them.

Text of the letter:

You will be aware of the order of the NGT mentioned above that says:
“Therefore, we consider it appropriate to direct Ministry of Environment and Forest to look into the issue in consultation with the Experts in the field, as to whether any Environmental Clearance is required or not and whether Environmental Impact Assessment is to be done in projects relating to Inland Waterways … The Ministry of Environment would submit their final opinion to the Tribunal by January 31, 2019.”
With reference to this, we the undersigned, who have been working on issues related to rivers, waterways, ecological and social impacts of interventions in river systems and other linked issues, urge you urgently to make prior environmental clearance mandatory and legally binding for the waterways projects in their entirety, and for each of their components, taken together and separately, by unambiguously bringing them under the ambit of the EIA Notification 2006. This will set to rest the current uncertainty that has been sought to be created to exempt these waterways from the ambit of environmental clearance, in spite of their serious adverse impacts.
This needs to be done for the following reasons:
  • Waterways have huge environmental and social impacts: 
The creation, maintenance and operation of inland waterways has huge adverse environmental and social impacts on the morphology, habitats, ecology, flora and fauna of rivers and other waterbodies, and on livelihoods of communities depending on them.
Waterways involve interventions like dredging the river bed, a highly intrusive activity that can damage the river bed habitats, and river straightening and training works, river protection works, all leading to severe impacts on the river habitat and ecology. Dredging can release toxic pollutants that have previously settled on river beds, as well as create noise and turbidity.
Operation of vessels leads to leakage of oil and lubricants, heightened noise and increase in turbidity, all with serious impacts on the flora and fauna. Dust pollution from bulk cargo to be carried on these waterways like coal, fly ash, and other ores also possesses risks for the riverine ecology. Construction of facilities on the river banks like terminals, jetties, depots etc. would also lead to severe impacts. Accidents of vessels carrying hazardous cargo pose additional risks.
All of these are also likely to impact livelihoods of riverine communities, including fisherpeople, boatspeople, riverbed cultivators, among others.
  • Some components already need Environment Clearance: 
The EIA Notification 2006 already includes, as Item 7 (e) of the Schedule, several important components of waterways like dredging and ports. It must be noted that the letter as well as spirit of the Notification clearly indicates inclusion of both maintenance and capital dredging. It is established law that if a component needs to get environmental clearance, then the entire project also needs to seek such clearance. One cannot artificially separate such components of projects.
Established environmental practice also requires this. But there appears to be an attempt to circumvent this provision and exempt several waterways from environmental clearance.
  • Arbitrary application, some waterways are subjected to EC process: 
There seems to be great arbitrariness in the application of Item 7(e). In the past, MoEFCC has initiated the process of environmental clearance for some waterways by issuing TORs, for example the Goa Waterways (Waterways 27, 68 and 111, TOR issued on November 26, 2016), and stretches of Waterways 4 and Waterways 5. These TORs have been issued with reference to Item 7(e). Yet, others like the Ganga waterway, Brahmaputra waterway, Barak waterway are being allowed to proceed without requirement of EC. This arbitrariness needs to end.
  • MoEFCC’s own expert committee has recommended that waterways must require EC: 
On May 18, 2017, the MoEFCC’s own “Expert Committee For Streamlining Clearance Procedures Including Examination and Recommendation on Various Technical Issues like Review of Project/Activities for its Inclusion Under EIA Notification 2006…” met to discuss “Applicability of EIA Notification 2006, for Jetty Construction in Rivers and Dredging in Rivers and Inland Waterways Development Projects”. Among other things, it explicitly recommended: 
“In order to create more clarity regarding the applicability of such projects under the EIA Notification, 2006, the Expert Committee recommended for amending the EIA Notification, 2006 to include 'Inland Waterways, Jetties and Multi modal Terminals under the list of items requiring prior environmental Clearance. However, Public Hearing in respect of Inland Waterways may be restricted to areas where facilities such as jetties, terminals, storage are created.”
The Committee also recommended that waterways should be listed as Category A projects. Unfortunately, such an unambiguous recommendation has yet to be acted upon by the MoEFCC.
  • Work proceeding apace: 
Work is proceeding apace on a number of waterways in rivers like Ganga, Brahmaputra, Barak, in sensitive areas like Sundarbans, all without any environmental clearance process or statutorily binding environmental scrutiny. This is leading to huge impacts, many of which are likely to be irreversible in nature. It is to be noted that the National Waterways Act 2016 has already designated the creation of 111 inland waterways in all parts of the country, and more are under discussion.
  • Current EIAs are outside the legal and regulatory regime: 
For some of the waterways, the implementing agency (IWAI) has commissioned EIAs. However, this is not sufficient to protect the environment. Such EIAs are being done outside the framework of the EIA Notification 2006, and hence are not subject to independent scrutiny of the Expert Appraisal Committee of the MoEFCC, or post-clearance independent monitoring and compliance review. They are at best scrutinised by the project promoter itself. 
Moreover, an environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006 would carry legally binding conditions with provision for judicial appeal and recourse to enforcement through judicial intervention. The environmental management plan prepared outside this framework is not legally binding and has no recourse to judicial challenge, and hence subject to discretion of project promoter.
  • Dredging, ports in Ganga wrongly exempted from EC: 
The work on the Ganga waterway (National Waterway 1) including the dredging work, as well as the multi-modal terminal on the Ganga at Varanasi among others has been exempted by MoEFCC from requirement of environmental clearance. This exemption has no legal basis, no rationale, no logic and seems to have been done under pressure bypassing extant laws and regulations. 
This and such kind of exemptions are possible only because of the lack of explicit articulation in EIA Notification 2006 including in the Item 7(e). This needs to be addressed through an unambiguous articulation of the need for environmental clearance for all these components and the waterways in their entirety.
Given all this, we urge that the MoEFCC, as a part of its response to the NGT Order:
A. Clarify that dredging in all waterways has to seek prior environmental clearance as it is covered by item 7(e).
B. Clarify that all river ports, terminals, jetties for inland waterways would have to seek environmental clearance as they are included in Item 7(e)
C. Clarify that A and B above will apply to all waterways including the Ganga
D. Amend the EIA Notification 2006 immediately to include in the Schedule, waterways in their entirety and all components including but not limited to dredging, river training works, river protection works, river ports, river terminals, jetties, operation of barges and vessels in the waterways etc.
We would be happy to provide any further information, clarifications or inputs related to this.
---
*Click HERE for the list of signatories

Comments

TRENDING

It's now official: Developed Gujarat's regular, casual workers earn less than 19 top states

By Rajiv Shah
Though not as low as state chief minister Vijay Rupani claims it to be (0.9%), Gujarat’s unemployment rate, at least as reflected in a recent report released by the Government of India, is 4.8%, lower than the national average, 6%. Yet, ironically, the same report, released soon after the Lok Sabha polls came to an end in May 2019, brings to light an even grimmer reality: Lower wages in "model" and "developed" Gujarat compared to virtually the whole of India, including the so-called Bimaru states.

Telangana govt proposes to give unfettered powers to forest officials, 'help' corporates

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao*
The Telangana Government is contemplating to replace the Telangana Forest Act 1967 with a new law - the Telangana Forest Act (TFA) 2019, trampling the rights of adivasis ensured under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA Act 2006) and Panchayats Extension to Schedule Area (PESA) Act 1996 both of which are central acts.

Amaravati: World Bank refusing to share public grievances on Land Pooling Scheme

By Our Representative
A new report, prepared by the advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), New Delhi, has taken strong exception to the World Bank refusing to share its independent assessment of the Land Pooling Scheme (LPS), floated by the Andhra Pradesh government in order to build the new capital.

British companies export 'deadly' asbestos to India, other countries from offshore offices

By Rajiv Shah
“The Sunday Times”, which forms part of the powerful British daily, “The Times”, has raised the alarm that though the “deadly” asbestos is banned in Britain, companies registered in United Kingdom, and operating from other countries, “are involved in shipping it to developing nations”, especially India. India, Brazil, Russia and China account for almost 80% of the asbestos consumed globally every year, it adds.

RSS, Hindu Mahasabha were 'subservient' to British masters: Nagpur varsity VC told

Counterview Desk
Well-known political scientist Shamsul Islam, associate professor (retired), University of Delhi, in an open letter to the vice-chancellor of the Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Dr Siddharthavinayaka P Kane, has taken strong exception to the varsity decision to include RSS’ “role” in nation building in the syllabus of the BA (history) course, citing instances to say that the RSS ever since its birth in 1925 with its Hindutva allies like Hindu Mahasabha led by VD Savarkar worked overtime to “betray the glorious anti-colonial freedom struggle”.

Beijing-based infrastructure bank 'funding' India's environmentally risky projects

By Our Representative
A new civil society note has questioned the operations of the Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a multilateral development bank that aims to support the building of infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region, seeking to fund projects in India through the Government of India’s National Infrastructure Investment Fund (NIIF), calling it “a risky venture”.

Include all workers exposed to silica dust in anti-TB programme: Govt of India told

Counterview Desk
In a letter, sponsored by well-known civil rights organization, Occupational & Environmental Health Network of India and signed by more than 60 professionals and activists*, Dr Harsh Vardhan, Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, has been told that Indian policy makers shouldn't just acknowledge higher TB risk to mine and stone crusher workers, but also “other silica-exposed workers”.

Govt of India 'lying': MGNREGA budget reduced by Rs 1,084 crore in 2019-20

Counterview Desk
NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, a well-known advocacy group for the rural jobs guarantee scheme, under implementation since 2005, has said that the statement by the Rural Development Minister has a made a mockery of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) on the floor of Parliament, revealing the ruling BJP’s “anti-worker and anti-poor bias”.

Universal healthcare? India lacks provisions to 'fight' non-communicable diseases

By Moin Qazi*
Universal health coverage (UHC) -- ensuring that all people receive proper and adequate health care without suffering financial hardship -- is an integral part of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. It enables countries to make the most of their strongest asset: human capital.

Govt of India seeks to 'subvert' autonomy of adjudicating authorities: RTI amendment

Counterview Desk
India's independent Right to Information watchdog, The National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), in a statement, has said that the Government of India’s proposed amendments to the RTI Act to empower the Centre to unilaterally decide the tenure, salary, allowances and other terms of service of Information Commissioners at the Centre and States “seriously undermine” the law.