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

World Bank clarifies: Its 26th rank to India not for universal access to power but for ease of doing business

By Our Representative
In a major embarrassment to the Government of India, the World Bank has reportedly clarified that it has not ranked India 26th out of 130 countries for providing power to its population. The top international banker’s clarification comes following Union Power Minister Piyush Goyal’s claim that India has “improved to 26 position from 99” in access to electricity in just one year.

"Misleading" satellite images being shared on Balakot surgical strike on Jaish camp

By Dr Vinay Kate*
With every passing day more questions are being raised about the surgical strike India did in Balakot as a response to Pulwama attacks. So far the Indian media has claimed mass casulaty of 300+ terrorists of Jaish-e-Mohammad in this surgical strike, but there is hardly any report from foreign media about the same.

Extreme repression, corporate loot, cultural genocide "characterise" India's tribal belt

Counterview Desk
As Lok Sabha polls approach, there is considerable ferment in one section of the population -- India's Adivasis, forming about 8.6 per cent of India's population. Things became particularly critical following the February 14, 2019 Supreme Court order, allegedly seeking to evict lakhs of tribals from their forest lands.

Industry in India "barely growing", export growth 0%, whither moral anchors?

Counterview Desk
In a sharp critique of the Modi government, the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIM-A), one of world renowned economist Prof Kaushik Basu, who is Professor of Economics and Carl Marks Professor of International Studies at Cornell University, has told students at the IIM-A’s 54th Annual Convocation on March 16, 2019 that they have a “special responsibility” on their shoulders, “the responsibility to reject narrow sectarianism, uphold scientific thinking, openness to new ideas, and freedom of speech.”

Congress would win just 9 of 26 Lok Sabha seats: Gujarat Assembly segment-wise analysis

By Rajiv Shah
Even as the Congress plans its first working committee meet in Gujarat on February 28 after an almost 58 year gap, there is reason to wonder what is in store for India’s grand old party in a state which has been long been a BJP bastion – in fact ever since mid-1990s. Ahead of the then assembly polls in late 2012, talking with me, a senior Gujarat Congress leader, currently Rajya Sabha MP, frankly said he saw no reason why Congress would win.

Financial inclusion? Not micro-loans; India's poor "need" investment in health, education

By Moin Qazi*
India has grown into a global powerhouse. Its economy is soaring but the picture on the ground is still quite arid. The green shoots that you see are only a patch of its landscape. Most Indians are hapless victims of inequity. India is one country where intense poverty abounds in the shadow of immense wealth.

"Pro-corporate" Supreme Court order on FRA would further marginalize Adivasis

By VS Roy David, JP Raju*
For millions of Adivasis and other traditional forest dwellers February 13, 2019 will go down in history as the day of apocalypse. This is like the proverbial Black Friday where millions of most marginalized people of India were ordered by malicious anti-people draconian Supreme Court order depriving them the life and livelihood by evicting them from their habitats.

India, Pakistan told to eliminate nuclear weapons: N-war "would kill" 2 billion

Counterview Desk
The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), a non-partisan federation of national medical organizations in 64 countries, representing tens of thousands of doctors, medical students, other health workers, and concerned citizens, claiming to share the common goal of creating a more peaceful and secure world freed from the threat of nuclear annihilation, has warned that “an unprecedented global catastrophe” awaits the globe against the backdrop of warmongering in India and Pakistan.

Modi wants Pak govt be held responsible for JeM terror strike: World doesn't agree

By Sandeep Pandey*
I went to participate in a candle light homage paying event at Dr BR Ambedkar's statue organised by about 200 Dalit students on Hazratganj main crossing in Lucknow on February 16, 2019 evening, two days after the dastardly terrorist act in Pulwana, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), in which 44 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel was killed.

Women, business, law: India scores worst among all BRICS, several African nations

By Rajiv Shah
A new World Bank report ranks India 125th in its Women, Business and the Law (WBL) index among 187 economies it seeks to analyse across the globe. The report's main aim claims to be to "gain new insight into how women’s employment and entrepreneurship choices are affected by legal gender discrimination. On a scale of 100, India's score is 71.25, worse than the global average of 74.71.