UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY

Mining in India has today emerged as

among the greatest threat to democracy
and rule of law. New York Times
Columnist Thomas Friedman
1
states that
wherever Government can raise most of their
revenues by simply drilling a hole in the ground
rather than tapping their peoples energy,
creativity and entrepreneurship, freedom tends to
be curtailed, education underfunded and human
development retarded.

Thomas Friedmans First law of

Petropolitics is pertinent. The law states that
in oil rich states, the price of oil and the
pace of freedom tend to move in opposite
direction. Higher the price of average global
crude oil more is the erosion in free speech,
free press, free and fair elections, freedom of
assembly, government transparency, judicial
independence, rule of law and formation of
independent non governmental
organizations. All these negative trends are
also reinforced by the fact that higher is the
rise in oil prices less the leaders care about
what the world thinks or says about them.
They have greater domestic income to build
up domestic security forces, bribe
opponents, buy votes or public support and
resist international norms.

1
Hot, Flat and Crowded, 2008
EIAJournal
Anupdateonnews,viewsanddevelopments
inIndiasEIAprocess
Vol.IV,March,2010



Contents

1.Editorial:Undermining
Democracy

2.EIANews.3

3.Newsfromthe
Court.4

4.EIAfollowup:Thermal
PowerPlantofEastCoast
Energy
Ltd.11

5.EIACritique:Sesmic
SurveybyOILIndiaLtd,
Assam...14








Editors
Ritwick Dutta
Manoj Misra
R. Sreedhar

Associate Editor
Shibani Ghosh




2
Using a statistical analysis of 113 states between 1971 and 1977, Michel Levin Ross
(Does oil hinder democracy, World Politics, April 2001) a leading political
commentator, concluded that a states reliance of either crude or mineral exports tends
to make it less democratic; that the same effect is not caused by other types of export.

All the above is clearly visible in India today. It is impossible to have a society which is
dependent on exploitation of mineral resources whether in the form of oil, iron ore,
bauxite and yet be transparent, democratic and accountable. The classic instance is in
the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where large scale illegal mining has
disrupted the democratic fabric of the society as well as compromised the rule of law.
So much so that the inter-state border between the two states has blurred resulting from
illegal mining.

Mining was permitted without any formal approval under the law (Mines and Minerals
Development and Regulation Act) since the Chief Minister of Karnataka took a view
that mining of iron ore is being done by farmers in order to make the land fit for
cultivation; and thereby an area of nearly 14,000 Sq Km (including thousands of
hectares of dense forest land) was dereserved for mining by the private companies; the
State earned a revenue of Rs 16 per ton as royalty for Iron ore while the mining
companies earned nearly Rs 5000 per ton. The eye opening report of the Lok-ayukta of
Karnataka that provides a chilling account of how Ministers, Officials and Mining
mafia shamelessly collaborated to loot the states natural resources is gathering dust.
Worst is that all this is being justified in the name of states development (sic).

Any person who regards mining as development should read the above report.
Economists and politicians usually turn a blind eye when it comes to environmentalists
raising concern about mining. But can they ignore that fact that the Lokayukta of
Karnataka is a former Judge of the Supreme Court (Justice Santosh Hedge).

This issue of the ERC Journal extensively covers a number of EIA related recent
judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court. Many of these were delivered by the
bench comprising Justice A.P Shah and Justice Muralidhar. Justice A.P Shah who
retired the other day as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court will surely be missed
by all those fighting for justice whether in the sphere of human rights or for
environment protection.

RitwickDutta

EIANEWS

Project proponent withdraws from Thermal Power Plant project

Project site of Ind Bharat at Karwar, Karnataka

In a significant development and as a boost to the rapidly growing movement against
thermal power plants planned on the west coast of India the Hyderabad based Ind-
Bharath Power (Karwar) Limited has decided in December 2009, to shelve its 450-MW
coal-based thermal power plant project in Hanakon in Uttara Kannada district,
Karnataka. It is the victory for the people of Hanakon and surrounding villages, who
have been fighting against the thermal project for the last two years.

This was not without a fight both in the court and also outside. An appeal was filed by
local resident and lawyer Balakrishna Pai before the National Environment Appellate
Authority (NEAA). The NEAA stayed the project pending disposal of the matter. One
of the main grounds of Appeal against the project was that the EIA report failed to
disclose the presence of a Wildlife Sanctuary (Cotigao Sanctuary in Goa) and Anshi
Tiger reserve. The project proponent made the statement that there was no national
park and Sanctuary within a distance of 10 kms from the project site. Many other
serious deficiencies in the EIA report were pointed out. Notably the Forest Department
of Karnataka had vehemently opposed the project but its views were ignored during the
environment clearance process at the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

The movement against the project took a violent turn on with a number of women
and men including Sri Balakrishna Pai (the appellant before the NEAA) arrested and
kept in Jail for almost a week with over 30 other persons.

The threat to the site from the project is it seems still not fully over. This is because
despite the blatantly false information provided by the project proponent, the Ministry
(MOEF) is yet to revoke the environmental clearance (EC) given for the project. Thus


4
unless revoked the project proponent can very well transfer the Environmental
Clearance to another proponent !



State supported and corporate led violence against those opposing the thermal power
plant at Karwar

Morotarium on Mining in Goa

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has in a welcome decision on 22 Feb 2010
imposed a moratorium on consideration of new mining proposal from the state of Goa
till the Mineral Policy for the State of Goa is finalized.

Excerpts from the Letter issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the
Chairman,GoaStatePollutionControlBoard.

NEWSFROMTHECOURT

Environmental Clearance to be made public at the earliest directs Delhi High
Court; MoEF yet to implement it

TheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourtofDelhipassedon14October2009anorder
directingtheMinistryofEnvironmentandForeststoensurethatanordergranting
environmental clearance has to be put in the public domain at the earliest, and
definitelywithinaperiodoffivedaysofpassingsuchorder.

This order came in response to a writ petition filed by Jan Chetna against the order of
the National Environment Appellate Authority dismissing an appeal on grounds of
delay. Jan Chetna had filed an
appeal in the NEAA against
the environmental clearance
granted on 5 November 2008
to the M/s Scania Steel &
Power Ltd. for expansion of its
integrated steel plant and captive power plant at . in Chhatisgarh. The NEAA had
dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appeal filed by Jan Chetna on the 90
th

day from the date of the clearance (31

January 2009) did not contain an application for
condonation of delay. According to Section 11 of the NEAA Act, an Appeal against an
order granting environmental clearance has to be filed within 30 days of the order. The
NEAA may entertain the appeal after the expiry of 30 days but not after 90 days if it
finds that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. Rule 5(4) of the NEAA
Rules 1997 mandates that in case of delay the memorandum of appeal should include
separate application for condonation of delay and an affidavit in support of such
application.

The Delhi High Court observed that the Petitioner had included the grounds for
condonation of delay in their memorandum of Appeal which were that information
relating to the grant of the environmental clearance was not available in the public
until 19 January 2009 and the order itself was only received by the Petitioner from the
MoEF on 29 January 2009. The High Court found this ground to be sufficient for the
NEAA to condone the delay. The MoEF uploads the order granting environmental
clearance on its website long after these are passed and invariably after a period of 30
days. This meant that those persons who are aggrieved by the order of the MoEF and
were located outside Delhi are unable to file the Appeal with the NEAA within
limitation period. The High Court held that if the proviso to Section 11 of the NEAA
Act (allowing condonation of delay) were to be strictly construed, it would be
mandatory for the MoEF to make the entire order and information relating to the grant
of environmental clearance available on its website within five days of passing the order.
An aggrieved person is unlikely to know about the order within a reasonable period of
time other than by looking at the website. The Court was unable to accept the technical
AnaggrievedpersonsrighttofileanAppealagainstan
environmentalclearanceisdefeatedifheisnotawareof
theordergrantingsuchclearance


6
ground taken by the NEAA that since there was no separate application for
condonation of delay, the Appeal had to be dismissed. The Appeal was restored to the
file of the NEAA and it was directed to decide the matter on merits in accordance with
law and within three months from the date of receipt of the Courts order.

The High Court in its order not only directed the MoEF to ensure that all orders
granting environmental clearance are made available on its website no later than 5 days
from the date of passing of the order but also directed the MoEF to publish the said
order in two local newspapers in the area in which the industry concerned (which has
been granted permission) is located or is proposed to be located, one of which is in the
local language.

HowMOEFisViolatingtheHighCourtOrder
The MoEF amended the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 on 1
December 2009. One of the amendments was to Para 10 Post Environmental
ClearanceMonitoring.TheAmendmentaddsanewPara10(i)

10(i) (a)InrespectofCategoryAprojects,itshallbemandatoryfortheproject
proponent to make public the environmental clearance granted for their project
along with the environmental conditions and safeguards at their cost by
prominently advertising it at least in two local newspapers of the district or State
where the project is located and in addition, this shall also be displayed in the
projectproponentswebsitepermanently.
(b) In respect of Category B projects, irrespective of its clearance by
MoEF/SEIAA,theprojectproponentshallprominentlyadvertiseinthenewspapers
indicating that the project has been accorded environment clearance and the
detailsofMoEFwebsitewhereitisdisplayed
(c) The Ministry of Environment and Forests and the State/Union Territory
Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs), as the case may be,
shall also place the environmental clearance in the public domain on Government
portal.
(d) The copies of the environmental clearance shall be submitted by the
projectproponentstotheHeadsoflocalbodies,PanchayatsandMunicipalBodies
inadditiontotherelevantofficesoftheGovernmentwhointurnhastodisplaythe
samefor30daysfromthedateofreceipt.(emphasisadded)

Interestingly,theMoEFdoesnotgiveatimelimittoitselfortheprojectproponent
toplacetheinformationrelatingtotheenvironmentclearanceandtheorderitself
in the public domain website and the newspapers. The High Court of Delhi had
emphasisedonthefactthatifthisinformationwasnotmadepublicattheearliest,
the right of the aggrieved to Appeal to the NEAA was taken away. The MoEF
appears to have deliberately chosen to ignore this part of the Courts order while
makingamendmentsvidetheabovementionedNotification.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY QUASHES AN

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FOR THE SECOND TIME

The National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) in a landmark order of 8-3-

2010 quashed the environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment &
Forests (MoEF) to the Athena Chattisgarh Power Private Limited (ACPPL) to set up a
1200 MW power plant in Janjgir Champa district of Chattisgarh. This is the first time
in the 12 years since the NEAA was set up that an environmental clearance has been
stayed. The lone member of the NEAA Mr. J.C. Kala in his order stated that he had
viewed recordings of the proceedings of the Public Hearing held on 15 January 2009 in
the presence of the Appellants representative and the Respondents (who did not
dispute the authenticity of the recording). The Additional Collector after hearing the
views of Mr. Ramesh Agrawal, Member, Jan Chetna, that the EIA Notification of
conducting Public Hearing had not been followed, had announced during the Public
Hearing that the Public Hearing was cancelled. This meant that the proceedings of the
Public Hearing had no validity. It was not clear from the minutes of the Expert
Appraisal Committees (EAC) minutes whether it had taken this fact into
consideration. In view of this Mr. J.C. Kala deemed it fit that the clearance order be
quashed.

PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DESERVES INDEPTH SCRUTINY :DELHI HIGH COURT

The procedural propriety of the grant of an environmental clearance to the Borga

Mines at Village Rivona to Panduranga Timblo Industrias was the main issue before
the High Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by Utkarsh Mandal. The Petitioner had
approached the Court after an Appeal against an environment clearance granted to the
renewal of a mining lease in Goa was dismissed by the NEAA. The High Court
highlighted the three questions which were thrown up by the facts situation in the case
-

First, whether there was a requirement to make the Executive Summary of the EIA
available at least 30 days prior to the Public Hearing; and if it is not, would that vitiate
the Environmental Clearance?

Second, whether the principle of natural justice was violated by the fact that the EAC
(Mines) was chaired by a person who was the Director of four mining companies.

Third, whether the absence of reason in a decision of an administrative decision -
making body vitiated the decision itself.

With regard to the first question, the Court held that for project affected persons to
meaningfully participate in public hearing, they must have the full information of the


8
pros and cons of the proposed project and the impact it is likely to have on the
environment of the area. The EIA report is not in the public domain until the public
hearing. Unless it is made available mandatorily, the project affected persons would
have no knowledge of the environmental impact of the project. To this extent, the
Court disagreed with the holding of the NEAA which held that there was no
procedural infraction in making the Executive Summary available only 9 days before
the Public Hearing as was the case in the present instance. However the Court held
that despite the Executive Summary not being available to project affected persons 30

Rivona Village in Sanguem Taluka, Goa. The marked out areas are the tentative
areas proposed for mining.

days before the Public Hearing, there was no need to hold the Public Hearing again as
it had been attended by a number of people and 67 objections were received.

In response to the second question, the Court noted that appointing a person who had
a direct interest in the promotion of the mining industry as Chairperson of the EAC
(Mines) was an unhealthy practice that would rob the EAC of its credibility since there
is an obvious and direct conflict of interest. In this regard the Court made certain other
observations on the functioning of the EAC. The EAC had granted clearance to 410
projects in the first six months of 2009 which were a very high number in a fairly short
period of time. The Court further found the practice of passing several environmental
clearances by the EAC on the same day as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. According
to the Court, not more than five applications should be considered in a single meeting
of the EAC.

The EAC before recommending a clearance to the Project had not given any reasoning
as to how the objections raised by the Public were either satisfied by the project
proponents response or were otherwise over-ruled by the EAC The NEAA while
considering the Appeal of the Petitioner had also observed that the EAC in its minutes


9
of the meeting had done a detailed analysis of the various technical and environmental
issues but it was not apparent that the opposition to the Project had passed such a
rigorous test. The NEAA propounded on the need to have reasoning recorded in the
decision making process and for the MoEF to advise its Committees to record their
reasons for recommendations. Despite this the NEAA decided that the absence of the
reasoning in the present case did not vitiate the environmental clearance order in any
manner.

The High Court while deciding on the third question pointed out that the EAC was a
delegate of the MoEF and the task of evaluation had been outsourced to it. While the
decision of the EAC is not binding on the MoEF, it all the same performs a public law
function as is expected to function in accordance with the same standards which the
law requires the MoEF to adhere. The Court held-
37. The requirement of an administrative decision making
body to give reasons has been viewed as an essential
concomitant of acting fairly. Given that such a decision is in
any event amenable to judicial review, the failure to make
known the reasons for the decision makes it difficult for the
judicial body entrusted with the power of reviewing such
decision as to its reasonableness and fairness. The decision
must reflect the consideration of the materials available before
the decision maker and the opinion formed on such material.

The EIA Notification requires the EAC to undertake a
detailed scrutiny of the objections raised during the
public hearing and the response given to the objections
by the Project Proponent. Therefore, it is necessary that
the decision of the EAC to recommend a project must
reflect the consideration made on the merit of the
objections. It is not enough that the MoEF applies its
mind to the matter. The whole objective of outsourcing
the task of appraisal to the EAC is that a group of
experts can evaluate the project and the objections raised
therefore it is imperative that the body and not merely
the MoEF, applies its collective mind to the objections.
If reasons are not given as to why any or all of the
objections are accepted or negatived, the decision would
be vulnerable to attack on the ground that there is non-application of mind and hence
it is arbitrary. The Court found the stand taken by the NEAA to be surprising that
despite observing the lack of reasons, it did not believe that the final decision was
affected. The Court came to the conclusion that if the order of the NEAA was allowed
to stand, every Public Hearing would be reduced to a farce and even if a large number
of objections are raised, the clearance would still be granted.

The Court noticed that on the date of the Public Hearing for this mine, there were
Public Hearings for five other projects which were to be held on the same day, time and
venue. The Court found this to be indicative of the fact that MoEF took the
requirement of the Public Hearing in the EIA Notification lightly. The Court directed

The whole
objective of
outsourcing the
task of appraisal
to the EAC is that
agroupofexperts
can evaluate the
project and the
objections raised
therefore it is
imperative that
the body applies
its collective mind
to the objections
not merely the
MoEF.



10
that this practice be immediately corrected. The Court also stated that Public Hearings
should have adequate publicity and notice should be repeated over a period of ten days.

With regard to the issue of conditional clearances given to certain Projects, the Court
advised the MoEF to review its practice of giving conditional clearances without
specifying whether the conditions have to be mandatorily met before or after the
commencement of the Project.

Finally, the Court set aside the order of the NEAA and directed the EAC (Mines) to
hear the matter afresh consider all the objections raised and conduct a site visit itself
or through a sub-committee. The EAC was directed to render its fresh decision within
three months from the receipt of the order by Secretary, MoEF and the MoEF was
directed to take a decision within 8 weeks of thereafter. The Court further directed
each of the Respondents to give 10,000/- costs to the Petitioner.

Thejudgementwasdeliveredon26112009.On1022010i.ebeforetheexpiryofthree
months the MoEF in remarkable speed which is characteristic of its functioning when it
comes to project proponents, has granted fresh Environmental Clearance to the mining
project.AsitevisitwasmadeduringthefirstweekofJanuary,2010.TheMoEFteamwas
accompaniedbytheprojectproponent.Butnoeffortwasmadetomeetwitheitherthe
local affected people or even the petitioner organization i.e Uttakarsh Mandal or to
informthem.

Lafarge Cement project stayed by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on 5
th
February, 2010 stayed the environmental clearance granted
to Lafarge Cements Ltd in response to the report of the Central Empowered
Committee and a petition filed by Shella Action Committee. The case involves the
setting up of a cement Plant in Bangladesh with the mine located in Meghalaya. The
limestone was to be sent through conveyor belts. The EIA report prepared by ERM (An
EIA firm) had mentioned the area of barren and devoid of vegetation, but the site visit
report after approval of the project found out that the land was infact densely forested
and with dense vegetation and therefore attracts the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act,1980 and the Supreme Court orders. Lafarge has set up a plant
worth $225 million to extract limestone, which will be transported on a 17-km long
conveyor belt to a factory on the border with Bangladesh. The then Chief Conservator
of Forests Shri B.N Jha of the regional office of MoEF had recommended for
blacklisting of ERM for wrong information provided by it.

11
EIAFOLLOWUP

REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR. ASAD R. RAHMANI AND DR. ASHA RAJVANSHI TO THE
STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF WILDLIFE ON THE VISIT TO THE
NAUPADA SWAMP AND THE PROJECT SITE OF THE 2640 MW BHAVNAPADU THERMAL
POWER PROJECT OF M/S EAST COAST ENERGY PVT. LTD.

The Journal in its February 2009 issue had

covered the assessment of the Bhavnapadu
Thermal Power Project of M/s East Coast
Energy Pvt. Ltd. (ECEPL) by the Bombay
Natural History Society. In that issue a brief
description of the Project along with the chief
recommendations of the BNHS had been
reproduced. In December 2009, Dr. Asad R.
Rahmani of BNHS and Dr. Asha Rajvanshi
of Wildlife Institute of India, submitted a
report to the Standing Committee of the
Nation
al
Board of Wildlife on the site visit made to the
Naupada Swamp and the project site. The
Report includes a brief critique of the EIA
Report submitted by ECEPL, the description of
the environmental clearance process, and a
detailed site inspection report. At the end the
Report makes certain significant
recommendations for the Standing Committee
to consider.

The EIA report submitted has significant

inaccuracies and omissions some of which were
highlighted in the report:

1. The Final EIA report states that there are
no national parks, sanctuaries,
elephant/tiger reserves and migratory
routes within 10 km radius of the
proposed site which is entirely wrong as
the report itself observes elsewhere the
presence of several migratory species
such as Bar-headed goose, shoveller,
spotted bill Pelican, sarus crane etc.
The EIA was carried
out from March 2007
toMay2007whichare
the summer months
when the
marsh/swamp has the
least amount of water
and the area is used
for cattle grazing. The
migratory birds arrive
only September
onwards. Even the
local migratory birds
are confined to
remaining watered
areas. Therefore, the
study ignores the
impact on this
biodiversity and under
estimates the impact
oftheProject.
Report of NBWL


12
2. It has been wrongly stated in the EIA report that there are no endangered
animal species recorded or reported in the area of study. WII has recorded the
nesting of the Olive Ridley Turtles in this area which are a Schedule I species
under the Wildlife Protection Act.
3. The Report also ignores the species which are on the IUCN Red Data list
whose presence has been recorded in the area such as the Spot-billed Pelican,
Painted Stork, Sarus crane etc. The Painted Stork is a large (93 cm) colourful
conspicuous bird and if the researchers have missed this bird which inhabits the
swamp, the EIA was not conducted by competent people. The EIA study claims
that it has interviewed the local people. It seems unlikely that the local people
who consider the Painted Stork and the Pelican to be auspicious would not be
aware of the presence of these large birds in the area.
4. While it is true that the project site is
not a protected area or a wildlife
sanctuary but the Andhra Pradesh Forest
Department has acknowledged the
importance of the area as a vital nesting
site for Spot billed Pelican and Painted
Stork which are two globally threatened
species. This is evidenced by the
construction of a Bird observatory House
and Watch Tower. In addition the site
has been proposed to be designated as a
biodiversity heritage site under the
Biological Diversity Act 2002.

The Final EIA report for the project was
considered at the 36
th
EAC meeting in June
2008 during which the above-mentioned
inconsistencies were highlighted by a member of
the EAC. Keeping this in view, the EAC
recommended that the EIA report be modified
and a site-visit be undertaken by a sub-group of
the EAC. The sub-group conducted a site visit in
July 2008 and observed the conservation values
of the site and expressed the need to undertake
a more detailed assessment of ways to mitigate the impact on the wetland values of the
area. In the December 2008 meeting of the EAC, the proposed site was considered an
ecological entity with incomparable value requiring conservation and protection and
recommended that the project proponent to shift their site sufficiently away from the
marshy area.

The Project proponents reorganized their project plan and excluded 500 acres of marsh
land from the southern part of their plan from the original 2,450 acres. The Project was
finally recommended for environmental clearance on 11 February 2009.

Considering the fact that the Naupada swamps were important bird area in India, the
Standing Committee of the NBWL unanimously decided that a site inspection should
The Painted Stork is a
large (93 cm) colourful
conspicuous bird and if
the researchers have
missed this bird which
inhabits the swamp, the
EIAwasnotconductedby
competent people. The
EIA study claims that it
has interviewed the local
people. It seems unlikely
thatthelocalpeoplewho
consider the Painted
Stork and the Pelican to
be auspicious would not
beawareofthepresence
oftheselargebirdsinthe
area.
Report of NBWL


13
be carried out by Dr. Rehmani and Dr. Rajvanshi and a
detailed report should be submitted to the Board elaborating
on the ecological significance of the site. The site inspection
was conducted on 16-17 November 2009.

After discussions and site visit, Dr. Rahmani and Dr. Rajvanshi
came to the conclusion that the project will already have a
major ecological footprint, and therefore the team suggested
that every effort should be made to contain any other
associated impact of the project from additional infrastructure
requirement. The team categorically indicated that no
additional infrastructure should be planned in this area for
receiving the coal and that the proposal for constructing a jetty
should be dropped. The project officials agreed to review the
possibility of the existing port at Visakhapatanam for
transportation of coal.

The expert team finally gave several primary and secondary
recommendations in their report. The team identified a major
launae in the process of land acquisition in Andhra Pradesh
the fact that revenue land was being treated as wasteland
despite the immense ecological value of that land. There was
no process in place to identify important wetlands in the areas
falling outside forest and protected areas.

In view of the fact that this wetland should not have been
allocated for the project in the first place, the expert team
recommended that a Committee be constituted to assess the
ecological damage and the cost for restoration should be paid
by the ECEPL. No permanent construction had been done so
far. However, preliminary land work had been initiated.
ECEPL should be directed to vacate the land immediately and
the wetland should be declared as an important wetland.

While the team stressed on the need to restore the habitat to
its original state, it also made certain secondary
recommendations to minimise the damage to the ecological
important site by the project if it continued. These
recommendations included serious efforts to be made by the
project authorities to reduce their ecological footprint by
ensuring that strong and effective steps are taken to remedy the
impacts that the plant may have on the site; reduction in land
requirement for the project; the remaining wetlands should
remain untouched and should be given special protection. The
Conservation Cell of ECEPL should take up the conservation
and protection of the Naupada-Meghavaran swamp under the
integrated plan for conservation of all wetlands in the area of
their operation.
Note by editors: It is
surprisingthattheNBWL
team sought to provide
a route for the project
proponent to escape.
The EIA report was
clearly based on
concealment of
information. Work was
initiated at the site prior
to environmental
clearance and terms like
the site was not a
proposed migratory site
for birds was used.
Clearly there is no scope
for allowing such a
project to come up. The
NBWL team
recommended that the
thermal power plant at
Sompeta should not be
allowed to come up.
Unfortunately, the
Sompeta plant was
approved by the
Ministry of Environment
and Forest in January
2010





14
The expert team also made some
suggestions to the Government. Policy
directive for the protection of wetlands
outside protected areas and forests were
urgently required. Wetland Banking should
be promoted. Other areas of conservation
importance in the state of Andhra Pradesh
should be mapped and competent
authorities should be identified. No other
wetland should be given to any
development agency for industrial
development. There is a plan to construct
another power plant in Sompeta wetland.
The proposal should be cancelled
immediately.

Postscript: The Standing Committee of the
National Board of Wildlife in its 17
th

meeting held on 22 December 2009
unanimously accepted the
recommendations of the expert team and
decided to forward the suggestions and
conditions proposed by the team to the
state government for consideration
including the suggestion to declare the area
as a Conservation Reserve.

EIA CRITIQUE :SEISMIC SURVEY ON THE BRAHMAPUTRA

RIVER BY OIL INDIA LTD

The Oil India Limited (OIL) has proposed a Project which involves the seismic
exploration along the river bed of the River Brahmaputra to prospect for oil. This
Project may jeopardize the survival of the Ganges river dolphin (Platanista gangetica)
which inhabits the River. The Rapid Environment Impact Assessment (REIA) report
submitted by the OIL was recently critiqued by Dr. Linda Weilgart, Scientific Advisor
for the International Ocean Noise Coalition and the Okeanos Foundation. She finds
the assessment submitted by OIL to be inadequate as there are several gaps in the study.
The following are her findings in brief:

On 18
th
of March, 2010, the
National Environment
Appellate Authority partially
stayed the work on the
project by directing that no
filling up of wetland beyond
the 1000 hectares already
filled up should take place
thistheappealfiledbeforeit
is disposed off. It further
directed that the proposal
fortheJettyisalsostayedtill
the disposal of the appeal.
The MOEF on its part has
constituted another team of
experts to study the report
of Dr Rahmani and Dr
Rajvanshi. One will not be
surprised as to what will be
theoutcomeofthereport!


15
1. The Ganges river dolphin is not a marine mammal. This project would not be
conducted in the more open waters of the marine environment. Therefore, the
vast majority of the published studies cited in the REIA have very limited
relevance to the question of whether the proposed project poses the risk of
jeopardizing the continued survival of the Ganges river dolphin. There are two
prominent reasons, among others, why studies examining the impacts of loud
noise on marine mammals have limited relevance to impacts on the Ganges
river dolphin. First, the Ganges river dolphin, which inhabits far murkier
waters than marine mammals, has extremely limited visual perception and
relies far more on sound perception to survive. Impairment to sound
perception will likely have a much greater impact on Ganges river dolphin
than on marine cetaceans. Second,
a river is essentially a one-
dimensional channel of water in
which there is only one direction a
Ganges river dolphin could take
flight from an approaching boat
carrying seismic air guns. In
contrast, the open ocean offers
marine mammals a three-
dimensional means to take flight
from an approaching boat carrying seismic air guns and avoid the impacts of
loud noise.
2. The list of publications that have apparently been relied on by the authors is
rather limited because it omits several significant publications.
3. The report proposes mitigation measure for the predicted major impacts of the
project. However, the mitigation measures proposed are undermined, if not
nullified, by a substantial number of serious uncertainties and data gaps in the
REIA. Some of the uncertainties highlighted by her as follows:
a. Would the Ganges river dolphin avoid the area during seismic testing by
leaving habitat that is important for them? Observations of river dolphin
show that they hesitate to leave noisy, disturbed areas until it is too late
to do so, suffering sudden population declines.
b. If the Ganges river dolphin were to take flight from an area during
seismic testing, would negative associations of the area with excessive
noise prevent Ganges river dolphin from returning?
c. Would Ganges river dolphin suffer physiological trauma aside from
hearing loss, such as tissue damage? The Ganges river dolphin may
suffer non-auditory effects, like resonance, when exposed to excessive
noise even if the frequency of such noise is beyond their range of
hearing.
d. Would Ganges river dolphin prey be impacted by leaving the area or by
changing their behavior in a manner that makes such prey inaccessible?
ALERT!

The recent amendment made to

the EIA Notification in 2009
deletedSeismicsurveysfromthe
provisionsoftheEIANotification.


16
e. Would the proposed project cause sub-lethal effects such as stress that
compromises the reproduction and survival of the Ganges River
dolphin?
4. Monitoring has been proposed as a means to minimise the impact on the
endangered population. This has been criticized as being unreasonable as by the
time the monitoring measures detect an effect on the endangered population, it
may be too late to reverse the effect. There are inherent limitations to the
monitoring of the Ganges River dolphin as they are very shy and hard to spot.
Furthermore, this particular population has hardly been studied and therefore
there is very little baseline data on the population. Therefore detection of
population-level impact would be very difficult.
5. The REIA states that only received noise levels above 180 decibels may cause
harm to the Ganges River dolphin. This figure is controversial and in any case it
is mainly for physical trauma and injury and not for behavorial effects.

The Access Initiative has recently come out with its latest publication: How
Green Will be the Green Tribunal ?

For copies of the same please Contact : environics@gmail.com,
ritwickdutta@gmail.com

QUATERLY E J OURNAL

EIA Resource & Response Centre (ERC) and The Access Initiative, India
Coalition
ERC is a joint initiative of the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE),
The Environics Trust and PEACE Institute
TAI I ndia is part of the Global TAI Network (www.accessinitiative.org) which
aims at promoting access to Information, participation and access to justice on
environmental issues.
(ERC invites comments, suggestions as well as papers and articles and news of
EIA issues)


THI S J OURNAL I S PUBLI SHED WI TH THE KI ND SUPPORT OF THE DULEEP
MATHAI NATURE CONSERVATI ON TRUST


EIA Resource and Response Centre (ERC)
N71,LGF,GreaterKailashI
NewDelhi110048

Email:ercdelhi@gmail.com,environics@gmail.comWeb:www.ercindia.org