ERC Journal An update on news, views and developments in India’s EIA Process Issue 1, Volume V I I I , March, 2015 WHY JAYANTHI NATARAJAN IS WRONG Ritwick Dutta The recent disclosure by former Environment Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan about the ‘request’ she received from the Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, with respect to certain projects related to mining, construction and hydro power, needs a critical analysis. The BJP has been Contents quick to respond to the allegation and the Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar has been quick to state that his Ministry will review the projects rejected Editorial …… 1 by Jayanthi based on Rahul Gandhi’s NGT Update …… 5 request. In the letter written by Jayanthi Natarajan, she has stated that specific Analysis …… 11 ‘requests’ were made with reference to the following projects which led her to take action including rejection of these projects: 1. The Vedanta Bauxite Mining decide on how mining will affect the Project in Orissa cultural rights of tribals, if mining is 2. The Adani Port Project in Gujarat allowed on the Niyamgiri Hills. The 3. The GVK Hydro Power Project in Supreme Court also directed that the Uttarakhand Ministry of Environment and Forests 4. The Lavasa Township Project in should take a decision based on the Maharashtra outcome of the Gram Sabha proceedings. 5. The Nirma Cement Plant in Gujarat All the Gram Sabhas unanimously decided to reject the proposal for mining. The Let us examine the reality with respect to Ministry of Environment and Forests had each of these projects. It needs to be no option but to accept the verdict of the highlighted that Jayanthi Natarajan was Gram Sabhas and reject the Forest the Environment Minister from July 2011 Clearance. Thus, it is the resolution of the to December 2013. Gram Sabhas which was accepted by the Ministry Vedanta Mining Project: of Environment and In her letter, Natarajan In her letter she has Forests when Jayanthi has specifically referred to the ‘Stalled GVK Natarajan was the mentioned that she has Minister. rejected the project in Himachal Environmental Pradesh’. Let’s get the facts Adani Port Project: No Clearance (EC) of right: The GVK Hydro Adani Project was ever Vedanta. This is wrong. Power Project is neither rejected. Despite The Forest Clearance violation of (FC) was rejected by the ‘stalled’ nor is it in environmental laws, the Ministry of Himachal Pradesh. Committee appointed Environment and by Jayanthi Natarajan, Forests on 24.08.2010. which was headed by Sunita Narain, At the time of rejection of the Forest recommended imposing a fine of Rs. 200 Clearance, it was Jairam Ramesh who was crores (which accounts for 1% of the total the Minister for Environment and Forests investments) for the Adani Waterfront and not Jayanthi Natarajan. The decision and Power Plant project. In her letter, of Jairam Ramesh to reject the Forest Jayanthi Natarajan has not referred to any Clearance was challenged before the specific Adani project. Supreme Court by Vedanta and Orissa Mining Corporation. The Supreme Court GVK Hydro Power Project: In her letter, directed that the Gram Sabhas should Jayanthi Natarajan has referred to the ERC JOURNAL, MARCH 2015 Page 2 ‘Stalled GVK project in Himachal Pradesh’. Let’s get the facts right: The GVK Hydro Power Project is neither ‘stalled’ nor is it The Lavasa Township in Himachal Pradesh. The project is project was never stopped located in Uttarakhand and the project by Jayanthi Natarajan. The construction work is in full swing. The Project was indeed stopped for some time Environmental Clearance based on orders passed under Section 5 of for the project was in fact the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. granted on 09.11.2011 by This order was issued during her tenure. However, this stop work order was issued the Ministry of in view of a letter written by BJP leader Environment and Forests Uma Bharti (presently Water Resources and Ganga Rejuvenation Minister) who Environment and Forests has defended had expressed concern over the the grant of approval before both the submergence of the Dhari Devi temple. Courts. The decision of the MoEF to direct stoppage of work was challenged before Nirma Cement Plant: This leaves us with the Supreme Court and the Supreme only the Nirma Cement Plant in Gujarat. Court allowed the work on the GVK The Environmental Clearance of Nirma project to continue. was indeed revoked by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 1-12-2011 Lavasa Township Project: The Lavasa during the tenure of Jayanthi Natarajan. Township project was never stopped by The clearance was revoked on the ground Jayanthi Natarajan. The Environmental that the expert committee constituted by Clearance for the project was in fact the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted on 09.11.2011 by the Ministry of had come to a categorical conclusion Environment and Forests during her based on a field visit, that the project tenure despite the finding of the Ministry proponent has deliberately given wrong of Environment and Forests that Lavasa information. This decision of the Ministry Corporation has violated the provisions of of Environment and Forests was the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 challenged by Nirma before the National and the Environment Impact Assessment Green Tribunal and the NGT in its latest (EIA) Notification, 2006. The project was decision has quashed the order of challenged before the National Green revocation issued by the MoEF. Therefore, Tribunal (NGT) and is presently before the order revoking the Environmental the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Clearance has been set aside by the NGT. ERC JOURNAL, MARCH 2015 Page 3 The Ministry of Environment and Forests despite serious environmental and social has defended the grant of approval before concerns. She also does not deny it. In her both the Courts. letter to Sonia Gandhi she has clearly stated ‘I was never a bottleneck, nor was I Review? ever responsible for unwarranted delays in major projects, and I can prove this at This does not mean that one should not any time”. The National Green Tribunal review the decisions taken during the era has repeatedly stated that what ails the of Jayanthi Natarajan. It is strange that the MoEF is the hasty decision making letter of Jayanthi Natarajan only refers to process wherein it’s various committees, requests for rejection, but not a word in a mechanical manner approve a large about projects which were approved number of projects. It is unlikely that this based on specific requests. Conservative will be done, but if the Government is estimates suggest that she would have serious about good governance and wants approved not less than 1,500 projects to end crony capitalism, then a during her tenure and rejected only about transparent review of the approvals (both 1 or 2 projects. Jayanthi Natarajan during Forest and Environmental Clearances) her tenure was called a Green Minister: granted during Jayanthi Natarajan’s She gave a green signal to every project tenure is called for. ERC Journal is an Initiative of the EIA Resource and Response Centre (ERC), The Access Initiative India coalition Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment and aims to disseminate information on Forest and Environmental Clearance issues. We invite articles which involve critical analysis of Court judgments, EIA reports and other related issues. Address: N-71 LGF, Greater Kailash 1, New Delhi, 110048. www.ercindia.org. For articles please email: [email protected] No copyright is claimed and the contents can be freely used. ERC JOURNAL, MARCH 2015 Page 4 NGT Update NGT quashes approval of industries and associated development of infrastructure. Further, the area has a IL & FS for improper high Comprehensive Environmental Cumulative Impact Pollution Index (CEPI) index, and was, until recently, classified as a “critically Assessment polluted area”. It is also located close to the Pichavaram mangroves – an 1 Preeta Dhar ecologically fragile ecosystem. The project would have a wide range of impacts on In a significant decision, the National the stressed and fragile ecosystem, as well Green Tribunal (NGT) quashed the as the health and livelihood of local Environment Clearance (EC) for the 3,600 communities. MW Thermal Power Plant of IL & FS in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, on the ground The project was granted Environmental that the project had not conducted a Clearance on 31 May, 2010. The NGT, on proper Cumulative Impact Assessment 23 May, 2012, had stayed the EC and (CIA). The Tribunal held that the directed a Cumulative Impact Assessment Cumulative Impact Assessment of the for the project to be conducted by the project, was conducted by the project project proponent. proponent on the basis of incomplete information and “non-existent” standards, In the judgment delivered on 10 and the EC granted by the MoEF was November, 2014, the NGT reiterated that without application of mind. a Cumulative Impact Assessment of the project was a mandatory requirement, The project had been proposed to be flowing from the declaration in column developed as a part of a Petroleum, 9.4 of Form-1 of the Environment Impact Chemicals and Petrochemicals Investment Assessment Notification, 2006. It was Region (PCPIR) with a port, several observed that the “cumulative impact due to proximity of other existing or proposed projects” forms a material parameter of 1 Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE), the appraisal required to be done by the New Delhi Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC). ERC JOURNAL, MARCH 2015 Page 5 On the quality of the Cumulative Impact Assessment done by the project proponent, the NGT observed that the Most shockingly, the entire exercise of Cumulative Impact standards used for the Assessment (CIA) was completed by the entire study were the project proponent within a period of 2 weeks without collecting any baseline “non-existent” National data.