Environment ministry clears Posco project, with conditions
|
COMMENTS 
Posco’s controversial steel and mining project in Orissa, which will uproot thousands of people, gets the nod from the environment ministry albeit with around 50 conditions. But those opposed to the project question whether this is of any use given the country’s traditionally weak monitoring process
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has given conditional clearance to the controversial $12 billion (Rs 51,000 crore) Posco project in Orissa. The integrated steel, mining and port project, and captive power plant coming up in coastal Jagatsinghpur district, about 100 km from the state capital Bhubaneswar, has been stalled for almost five years, since the Orissa government gave in-principle approval for the establishment of the port on June 14, 2006, because of objections by local people whose lands will be acquired, and allegations that environmental clearances were not obtained and provisions of the Forest Rights Act ignored.
The MoEF, which stayed the project in August 2010, gave the green signal on January 31, 2011. It has imposed 28 additional conditions as part of environmental clearance for the steel and captive power plant, and 32 conditions while according environmental clearance to the captive minor port.
Environmentalists and anti-displacement activists who have been opposing the plant have declared they will continue with their protests. The Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti (PPSS), which has been spearheading the movement against the project, said it will launch a nationwide agitation against the order.
“We will take the protest to New Delhi. All those who have been against displacement will join us. We will jointly launch a nationwide agitation,” said PPSS spokesperson Prasant Paikray.
Those opposed to the project have little faith in the conditions imposed by the MoEF. “The basic issue here is that the environment ministry may put as many conditions as it wants, but the compliance level is very poor,” said environmental lawyer Ritwik Dutta.
Dutta added: “The second point is that a four-member committee (the Meena Gupta Committee) gave a comprehensive report in which the majority said that the steel plant would impact the environment. But the ministry has gone for the minority viewpoint.
“The project has been cleared only because there has been a huge pressure for it to be done. The state government wanted it desperately because the project is of big nature.”
Shankar Gopalakrishnan of the Campaign for Survival and Dignity points out that the MoEF’s stand that the project could proceed if the Orissa government gave an assurance that the Forest Rights Act had been followed is flawed because the state government has no authority in the matter. “This was pointed out by both inquiry committees -- the Saxena Committee and the Meena Gupta Committee. The Meena Gupta Committee found documentary evidence from state government records of the presence of tribals and non-tribals in the area,” he said.
Chandra Bhushan, Deputy Director General, Centre for Science and Environment, said the point of conflict now is the Forest Rights Act, and what needs to be observed is compliance with the conditional assurance sought from the Orissa government.
In a strongly worded letter circulated on the Internet, Ranjan Panda, convener of Water Initiatives Orissa, states that the environment minister is sounding the death knell of his own ministry by succumbing to the pressure of big industry. ‘Some of the people who had been thinking of Mr Ramesh as a champion of the environment and that of the MoEF will find it surprising that he has in fact issued a death certificate for his own ministry by the way he has given clearance to the Posco plants.
‘Further, the way it vests all the monitoring to be done with the state government and other regulatory agencies (the ones who have pathetically failed to regulate and monitor pollution in this state) is a clear-cut indication of the eyewash. There is no condition laid out for the company and state government to return the land to displaced people and environmental conditions to the “previous stage” if the conditions are not met by the government.’
Posco, a South Korean company, requires 4,004 acres, mostly government land, for its project, the largest direct foreign investment project in the country. Of the land earmarked, 2,900 acres is forestland. Thousands of villagers have been opposing the project, saying it will displace them from their homes and ruin their betel leaf farms.
The conditions for environmental clearance for the steel plant include: following national ambient air quality standards; carrying out a sustainability study of water requirements; green area within the plant to be 25% of the total area; making risk and disaster management plans; and devoting 2% of net annual profits to corporate social responsibility.
Clearance conditions for the captive minor port include: no construction in the high-erosion zone; taking shoreline protection measures; submitting a detailed marine environment conservation plan; and compensating losses in fishing activity.
On the crucial issue of transfer of land, the ministry has asked the state government to give a categorical assurance that no traditional forest-dwellers were dependent on or cultivating land in the Posco project area. People categorised as ‘other traditional forest-dwellers’ are protected under the Forest Rights Act (FRA).
The process of getting clearances for the controversial Posco project has been long and torturous. The integrated plant received environmental clearance for the steel plant, the captive power plant and the port in 2007. In-principle approval to divert forestland for the project came in 2009. However, in January 2010, the environment ministry revised its forest clearance saying it depended on implementation of the FRA that came into force in 2008.
In June 2010, a committee headed by N C Saxena was constituted by the tribal affairs ministry and the environment ministry to look into FRA violations. The committee reported that though there were no tribals living in the project area, there were other traditional forest-dwellers whose rights are also protected under the FRA, and they have been ignored. The stop work order issued by the MoEF in August 2010 was a result of this report.
Another committee was then constituted by the MoEF to look into all environmental clearances for the project. This committee was headed by former environment secretary Meena Gupta, and it turned in a split verdict. Three members strongly opposed the project, saying all clearances for the project should be scrapped, while Gupta recommended that a further environment impact assessment should be carried out without revoking the clearance.
Source: IANS, January 31, 2011
The Indian Express, January 31, 2011
www.domain-b.com, January 31, 2011