Encroachment of Nature, People and Livelihoods: A Case of the Abusive, Greedy and Failing Amaravati Capital City Project (2014-2019) Research: Tani Alex Layout: Ankit Agrawal Published by: Centre for Financial Accountability New Delhi www.cenfa.org [email protected] Cover Photo: Rahul Maganti/PARI April 2019 Copylef: Free to use any part of this document for non-commercial purpose, with acknowledgement of source. For Private Circulation Only Encroachment of Nature, People and Livelihoods: A Case of the Abusive, Greedy and Failing Amaravati Capital City Project (2014-2019) 3 Background of the Amaravati Project (2014-2017) Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation of the Amaravati Capital City Project. Photo courtesy: AP Capital Region Development Authority fer bifurcation of the erstwhile Indian crops irrigated on the foodplains. Te area sited for state of Andhra Pradesh in June 2014, both the city presently has a population of 1.03 lakh while the new states of Telangana and Andhra that of the entire capital region would be 5.8 million. APradesh are sharing the Hyderabad as capital for 10 years. In September 2014, N Chandrababu Naidu, Te following contraventions of this project are the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh announced elicited, during 2014-2017, with regard to World that a single capital would be built for the State. Bank’s Operational Policies, in a concentrated efort to prevent forthcoming irreplaceable damages to Amaravati, the proposed capital city covers an area peoples’ lives. World Bank’s Operational Policies of 217. 23 sq. km with the seed capital in an area of framework have been employed here as AIIB has 16.94 sq. km, while the entire capital region pans agreed that the Environmental and Social Safeguard over a spread of 8352.69 sq.km across both Krishna Policies and related procedures of the World Bank will and Guntur districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. apply to this project; and that AIIB will rely on the Te city specifcally is planned to be built in Guntur World Bank’s determination as to whether compliance district on the banks of the Krishna River, which is with those policies and procedures have been achieved hailed as the rice-bowl of the State with 120 multi- under the project. 4 Summary of Violations and petitions have been submitted to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) stating that the EIA and EMP 1. Violation of Bank’s OP/BP 4.01 – reports were tailored to suit the needs of the GoAP.3 Environmental Assessment Since SESA-ESMF is the “overarching framework” 2. Violation of Bank’s OP/BP 4.04 – that regulates the environmental and social safeguards Natural Habitats at both the project’s development and implementation 3. Violation of OP/BP 4.11 – stages, we are apprehensive that SESA-ESMF Physical Cultural Resources document prepared for Amaravati misinforms the 4. Violation of OP/BP 4.12 - project afected communities, consultants, civic Involuntary Resettlement bodies, NGOs, and allied concerned groups. 5. Violation of OP/BP 4.36 - Forests 1.3. Te project is rendered Category A status and it will usher in high risk adverse impacts on the natural 1. Violation of Bank’s OP/BP 4.01 – environment of the earmarked areas of Guntur- Environmental Assessment Krishna districts, percolating to the surrounding habitats as well. It is believed that the Bank has merely 1.1. Afer the introduction of the concept plan for assessed the extent of the nature of the risk and a greenfeld Capital City in June 2015, a detailed have not adequately provided “…for assessment of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was feasible investment, technical, and siting alternatives, executed by Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd (TCE) including the “no action” alternative, potential from May-August 2015 and Environment Mitigation impacts, feasibility of mitigating these impacts, their Plan (EMP) was prepared. Construction activities of capital and recurrent costs, their suitability under the interim Government complex were progressing local conditions, and their institutional, training and at Velagapudi and a temporary secretariat is already monitoring requirements associated with them”(OP/ 4 established. Te initial leveling and construction BP 4.01 A.4). activities for the capital city had begun prior to the disclosure of EA report to the public. Without the 1.4. Te Shivaramakrishnan Committee, appointed project-afected communities comprehending the by the State in 2014 for a new capital, afer various enormity of the project and their consequences, consultations with numerous stakeholders the EA report was processed and “considering that across the thirteen districts of AP, came out with Article 19 of the Constitution entitles the citizen to recommendations for least dislocation of the existing know and since that right stands infringed in this agricultural lands along Krishna-Guntur belt and case, the whole process of EIA and issuance of the also cautioned about diverting fertile farmlands with EC stand vitiated.”1 Discrepancies in publishing the 120 multi-crops for developmental purposes (Report 5 Environment Clearance (EC) report to the public and of the Expert Committee 2014). To the dismay uploading it at APCRDA (Andhra Pradesh Capital of the agrarian communities, GoAP unnervingly Region Development Authority) website at the event rejected the propositions and sited one of the richest of NGT petitions is misleading and accordingly, food-belts of India for erecting the new capital city, presenting false information for obtaining EC triggers forfeiting national food security for infrastructure action by way of revocation of the EC for the project. development. We also fear that once developmental activities progress, the project executing agency will 1.2. It is claimed that both EIA and EMP underwent not repeal the same. Subsequently, petition has been signifcant scrutiny by the State Environment Impact fled to the NGT for the protection of these fertile Assessment Authority and Amaravati Capital City lands with a call for considering it immediately before project was accorded environmental clearance during 3 Te Hindu: (2017) NGT hearings on Amara- October 2015.2 Yet there are reports of forgery, vati over. Accessed from: http://www.thehindu.com/ todays‐paper/tp‐national/tp‐andhrapradesh/ngt-hear- 1 Noted Indian environmentalist and NGT peti- ings-on-amaravati-over/article18171374.ece tioner EAS Sharma, in a letter addressed to B. S. S. Prasad, 4 World Bank (2005): Operational Policies ,Te Member Secretary (APPCB),& Ex-ofcio Member Secre- World Bank Operations Manual, March tary (SEIAA), Hyderabad 5 Report of the Expert Committee (2014): Report 2 World Bank (2017): Strategic Environmental of the Expert Committee, Ministry of Home Afairs, and Social Assessment - Environmental and Social Union of India to Study the Alternatives for a New Capital Management Framework (SESA-ESMF), February for the State of Andhra Pradesh. 5 X Kondapalle Kotturu Chilukuru Kethanakonda Legend Ganiatukuru Malkapuram Inn er Rin X Existing Railway Stations g R Mulapadu oa ) d 1 Capital City Planning Boundary Zami MaChavaram 2 2 ( Tadepalle 0 Village Administrative Boundaries 3 - Damuluru Kotikalapudi KilesapuramN H - 65 (9) H Survey Parcels N Jupudi @ Land mark Elaprolu P1 P3 Existing Railway line P1 Paidurupadu P1 P3 DownTown Road Alignment Proposed Bund Alignment Vemavaram P1 Existing Bund Road P1 P1 P2 Ibrahimpatnam Road Network Outside Planning Boundary P1 P3 P3 P3 P1 Residential P1 P1 P2 P2 P1 P1 R1-Village planning zone 1/4 P2 1/5 1/6 P1 Kothapet Shabada P1 P1 P2 P3 1/7 P3 1/8 R2-Low density zone P1 P1 1/3 9 P1 1/2 P1 9/2 P1 1/9 P3 9/1 P1 1/1 P3 P1 P1 P1 R3-Medium to high density zone P1 P3 P1 1/10 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 1/11 1/12 P1 P3 P1 Raynapadu P3 P3 P3 R4-High density zone P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P3 P1 X 369 P2 P1P1 P1 P2 1/13 P3 P1 P2 P1 CommerCial P1 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 1/15 P1 P1 C1 -Mixed use zone P1P1 Tummalapalem HarisChandrapuram P1 P1 P3P1 1/14 53 P3 Rayanapadu 133 48 47 66 67 P2 49 51 59 P2 Guntupalle C2- General commercial zone 60 65 P1 4 8 42 41 40 39 54 Vykuntapuram 9 12 34 21 37 36 12 35 10 26 13 36 P1 71 11 104 57 P1 22 24 33 37 61 64 46 43 25 38 P1 55 23 38 14 32 101 56 P3 474550 35 102 77 C3-Neighbourhood centre zone 44 40 19 72 48 5 42 P2 63 0 58 20 31 50105 100 P3 m U1 41 39 15 76 60 30 98 62 79 49 51 59 61 66 16 106 67 107 103 52 R356 62 68 17 18 99 74 R1 65 21 73 83 2 114 80 P1 75 97 75 78 s Borupalem 22 23 P1 24 28 108 115 P1 pas C4-Town centre zone 77 70 da By 108 53 54 64 4 113 116 85 awa 76 78 55 29 P1 96 74 Vijay 109 63 3 14 15 1 109 81 P1 27 112 117 84 73 69 P1 92 82 86 107 R1 71 23 25 R1 118 95 202/2 110 C5 79 87 5 C3 88 13 16 110 111 123 80 26 91 P3 111 112 82 C4 S2 87 C5-Regional centre zone 88 C2 72 6 7 C4 126 C3 93 90 81 P1 22 R3 C3 113 86 12 C4 24 P1 339 197 202 115 P1 89 84 U1 25 P1 P1 124 S2 89 195196 202/1 P1 90P1P3 S3 98 R3 P1 122 119 94 337 184 S2198 114 106P3 85 106 11 17 127 P3 188 1/3 P1 m 130 125 187 P3 P1 P1 21 26 128 183 P1 R4 107 P3 P3 P1 P1 0 P1 P3 105P3 S2 131 S2 R3121 338 185 S3 R395 P1C2 20 5 120 111 P1 s C2 R3 186 108 S3 s C6-Central business district zone 119 116 104 S2 92 P2 18 129 145 P1 194 193 110R4 a 102 C2P1 P3 32 134 132 109 C5 105 96 P1 19S2 S2 199 112 P1 p C3 94 91 101 28 133 144 146 336 340182 C3 104 y 120 103 P1 31 180 190 B 118 50 m 99 102 C2 27 135 342 341 113 119 93 139 335 C1 P1 114R1 118 S2 120 a 122 103 C3 100 99 96 34 P130 143 147S3 d P3 121 R1 P3 29 137 138 148 C1 121 103 1/2 P1128 123 101 83 R3 142 334 178 a P1 P113 129 97 136 P1 346 179 Lingayapalem123 P1 136102 P2 w 16 35 40