Public Consultation or Manipulation for Tadadi Sea Port

As part of the Public Consultation process (EIA Notifications 2006), to obtain public views and comments on the Draft EIA Report, a Public Hearing was conducted by the State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) for the Tadadi Sea Port project proposed in the estuary, on 23.03.2015, at Secondary High School, Hiregutti village in Taluka of Uttara District.

After addressing the concerns raised by the public the Project Proponent is required to prepare a Final EIA Report, based on which the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the MEF & CC would make its recommendations for Environment Clearance (EC).

The Draft EIA Report for Tadadi Sea Port

The Environmental Impact Assessment studies for development of a Sea Port at Tadadi, , Karnataka, was completed in August 2014 by CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur on behalf of the sponsor Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructural Development Corporation Limited in Bengaluru, Karnataka.

The proposed project in the Aghanashini estuary consists of seven berths capable of handling 62.36 million tonnes of cargo per annum, with associated roadways, railways, operation areas, storage facilities, loading areas, and other infrastructure necessary to support the massive population influx of workers.

It will also hold a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) terminal and would require about 559 hectares of land, where the locals had already opposed a planned ship breaking project, waste oil power generation and then a coal Thermal Power Plant.

Panel People

A PCB Member welcomed the gathering

The Project Proponent made a presentation

Critical Comments Not Acceptable

The Panel consisted of the Deputy Commissioner of District Ujwal Kumar Ghosh and a KSPCB Member.

A token system was followed for people to speak. Right through the meeting whenever someone tried to raise issues about the project, people clearly brought in to support the project, would jeer and shout out in favour of the project.

In a pre-set kind of reflex, the Deputy Commissioner would intervene and ask the speaker to hurry up, while people speaking in support of the project would go on uninterrupted.

People /Groups Raise Voices Against the Project

Sadanand Harikantra, a local said that the Aghanashini is our mother. There is no truth in the Draft EIA Report and it does not consider people’s needs.

Maruti Gouda speaking on behalf of an Aghanashini bivalve’s collectors group said that the oyster beds and the existing fishing harbour will be negatively impacted, so he doesn’t want the project.

Mahabaleshwar Hegde raised issues with regard to disparity in the Terms of Reference. He also felt that the port should have prepared a Detailed Project Report (DPR). Overall he felt that the project information provided is not sufficient.

Mangal Shetty another stakeholder from Kagal said that the water sources would be destroyed and more salinity would result from this port activity.

Pandurang Hegde also raised his concerns regarding the project.

Pandurang Hegde (Appiko leader) M. R. Hegde (Snehakunja Trust)

Most people did not receive any response from the EIA Consultant during the proceedings.

ERC Raised Issues with the Project

We sought clarification on some concerns. It emerged that the baseline study was conducted in the post monsoon season of the year 2010. This makes the data more than 3 years old and rather out-dated.

When asked how the ecological value of the part of the estuary that is to be declared a Biodiversity Heritage Site would be preserved, the EIA Consultant said ‘they would do their best possible.’

Regarding any Cost-Benefit Analysis conducted for this project, the answer was that this is yet to be done.

When asked who will be implementing, running and maintaining this project? The response was that as this is a PPP model, this had not been worked out as yet.

When further questioned what are the guarantees provided that the project will implement all the measures it has promised even as the parties implementing the project were not finalised? The answer was that these would be made as conditions in the RFQ to the parties to be contracted.

The consultant was not able to satisfactorily answer all the questions/issues raised by us.

Detailed issues were raised in a written representation by ERC, some of which are:

a. The primary data collected and the involvement of the general public in the process. b. The likely changes in the local population resulting in concerns like waste, sewage, crime and burden on resources like water and land. c. The impact on local livelihoods and measures besides compensation to mitigate impact, as well as the kind of jobs and their duration of employment. d. Measures for preserving ecologically sensitive areas like the Aghanashini estuary, archaeological and sacred sites. e. Linked projects and supporting infrastructure like roads, trucks, power lines administrative buildings and additional revenue and /or forest land required for such additional development f. Impact of dredging and sewage waste on oyster beds and mangroves and how are oyster beds are planned to be relocated? g. Impact on the Gangavalli River due to withdrawal of water for this project h. Whether there would be any restrictions on the movements at the present fishing harbour.

Professor Bhat, a trustee of Snehakunja Trust said that there would be impacts on tourism. Further, a number of questions posed by him were not answered by the EIA Consultant. As per the EIA Notification 2006 every person at the venue should be granted the opportunity to ‘seek information or clarifications’ on the project from the applicant. The Deputy Commissioner said that these would be answered by the Project Proponent later.

Manjunath (Kagal) Prof. Bhat (Snehakunja Trust)

Manjunath from Kagal village raised issues about water pollution.

Other issues raised at the Public Hearing included importance of mangroves, destruction of water quality, dredging affecting the coastal topography and impact on vegetable growing.

Conclusion… not yet

As the Public Hearing neared its conclusion interspersed with hungry people helping themselves to lunch instead of a uniform lunch break being provided, a Pollution Control Board member proposed a vote of thanks.

However, as the Deputy Commissioner was about to conclude the meeting at about 3:15 pm and address the press, people present at the venue pointed out that the minutes of the meeting were not read out to the public as required by the EIA Notification 2006. The Deputy Commissioner said that these would be placed on the website of KSPCB. We pointed out that as per Para 6.4 of the EIA Notifications 2006, the proceedings accurately reflecting all the views and concerns expressed are to be read over to the audience in vernacular language.

Though the D.C. claimed to be well aware of the provisions, the panel was uncomfortable. The Deputy Commissioner instructed the PCB to compile the proceedings but the department showed its inability to do so. Clearly the Karnataka Pollution Control Board had not come prepared for this or worse still may not have been aware of this requirement.

This shows lack of competence. In a Public Hearing in Goa on 1 February 2015, for Mopa Airport, the proceedings were compiled and translated within a matter of about 2 hours and read out, followed by corrections being made by the public.

A unique situation came up at this Public Hearing. This would be making history in a way, where the KSPCB has asked the public to be present at the venue again on 27 March 2015 at 11.00 am for finalising the minutes, though the EIA Notification 2006 requires that the agreed minutes should be signed by the District Magistrate on the same day and forwarded to the SPCB concerned.

Terence Jorge,

EIA Resource and Response Centre (ERC)