Clearance to POSCO Project in Odisha: Taking the Nation for a Ride

With the decision on 31st Jan 2011 to grant clearance to the POSCO project, against strong recommendations of its own committees, the Environment Ministry and its Minister stand exposed. Minister Jairam Ramesh has finally shed the last vestiges of any pretence to be a Minister who is serious about implementing environmental laws.

Ramesh had initially shown much enthusiasm for enforcing to some minimum level the environmental and forestry laws, but soon this was seen to be tapering off, raising questions about whether Ramesh really is different from any earlier Environment Ministers.

He has now shown that the only difference is that he initially huffs and puffs, and breathes fire, (where there is fire, there must be smoke, to rephrase a popular saying, and where there is smoke there must a smoke screen) only to then readily hand over the clearances. The earlier ministers did not even bother about the prior pyrotechnics.

The POSCO clearance can only be described as blatant, and its justifications as insults to the intelligence of Indian citizens. For example, the clearance note put up by the Ministry on the web site announces that clearances have been granted with large number of additional conditions. Such “significant” conditions include following the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards and ensuring that no industrial activity is carried out in the CRZ area other than permissible under the notification. In other words, the project should follow the law of the land.

Another condition is carrying out the study of the sustainability of water requirement – something which should be done before the clearance, not after. And it requires the Project to “voluntarily sacrifice water” in case of a shortfall at the source. This is a rather touching belief in the Company.

In any case, where the MoEF has hardly any capacity to monitor conditions so that it is a case “impose conditionalities and forget them”, when everyone knows that once a project is given clearance, then even if violations of conditions are noted hardy any action is taken, then what is the sanctity of these conditions? And how can the conditions form the justification of the clearance?

As the POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti has stated in its statement “The decision today can be summarised in one sentence: "Repeat your lies, give us promises that we all know are false, and then loot at will."”

The Samiti has also stated that “We repeat: we will not give up our lands, our forests and our homes to this company. It is not the meaningless orders of a mercenary government that will decide this project's fate, but the tears and blood of our people. Through the road of peaceful demonstrations and people's resistance we have fought this project, in the face of torture, jail, firings and killings. If this project comes it will come over our dead bodies.

I express my full support and solidarity to their struggle, and wish them strength and success in this fight.

Serious Governance Issue Raised by MoEF Clearance to Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has today (28 nov 2010) accorded the environmental clearance to the 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear power plant in Ratnagiri district in coastal Maharashtra, against intense local and national opposition.

While declaring this decision, the Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh has stated “I tried to balance four objectives: the amount of energy required to sustain a growth rate of nine per cent; the proportion of fuel mix; strategic diplomacy, especially after the Civilian Nuclear Deal; and the environmental concerns raised by a large number of groups,” (The Hindu, 29 Nov 2010, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article919959.ece?homepage=true )

I find the decision to accord the clearance complete wrong, but I do agree with the above principle articulated by the Minister, that there is a need to balance several objectives. (I would add a few more to them including equity, displacement etc.). The issue is whether the MoEF is the competent authority to do this balancing. It is a serious problem with our project planning, regulation and governance systems that we do not have appropriate procedures and agencies to ensure such a balancing. The sector ministries (power, water, atomic energy etc.) look to only push their own sector’s growth – which they equate with national interests. Since they are the ministries deciding on the “need” and “desirability” of projects, the conflict of interest in balancing with regards environment, social impacts, equity etc are clear.

Ramesh, in his press note dated 28 Nov 2010 has stated at one point that he is “not the competent authority to pass judgment on matter related to the need, economics and safety of nuclear power plants.” Yet, he goes on to give strategic, economic and energy related objectives as the main justifications for according the clearance. In the absence of a mechanism to do the “balancing”, the MoEF cannot appropriate this process, though to be fair, so far it has been appropriated by the line / sector ministries, with disastrous environmental, social and equity impacts, and some pathetic shows on the performance front too. Unfortunately, the MoEF has ended up according clearance to an environmentally destructive project, for the reasons that it acknowledges it has no competence, nor the mandate to examine.

There are many detailed and specific criticisms of the MoEF order, which will surely be brought out by others. I want to mention only one more point here, and that is: Even if one accepts the MoEF’s argument that India desperately needs more electricity, the mere requirement of electricity at the national level cannot automatically translate into a justification for specific power plant.

Moving on to some other issues emerging from this clearance order, one must, in spite of several disagreements on specific orders of the MoEF, put on record the appreciation for making public its logic and reasoning through detailed explanatory notes (even though the logic may be often flawed!). The Minister needs to be commended for this.

Secondly, the press note related to the Jaitapur clearance makes a statement “India must get used to the concept of carrying capacity and cumulative impact assessment studies.” This is really critical and is most welcome. We would expect and hope that the Ministry puts this in place as a pre-requisite to clearing individual projects. And not leave it to the states as a voluntary effort, as is indicated in the press note.

(Image: People Protesting against the Jaitapur Plant: Photo Courtesy Lokayat http://lokayatpune.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/people-rise-up-against-jaitapur-nuclear-power-plant-and-destructive-projects-in-konkan/)

Environmental Clearance to Navi Mumbai Airport – A Dangerous Precedent?

The Ministry of Environment and Forests finally accorded Environmental Clearance to the proposed International airport at Navi Mumbai on 22 November 2010. (Image from CIDCO website)

The MoEF press note of 22 Nov 2010, signed personally by the Minister Shri Jairam Ramesh, states that “a good agreement has been obtained to the optimal satisfaction of all sides concerned”. In principle, it is to be appreciated that optimality is the important goal in such matters, for any human action is certain to have an impact on the environment. As we cannot have zero human activity, we need to create a balance (optimality) between any developmental activity and the impacts on environment.

In this case, leaving aside for time being the question of whether all sides are really satisfied, it is important to note a serious problem with how this optimality has been achieved.

The MoEF press note states that “By August 2010, it was clear that, for various technical and non-technical reasons, the Navi Mumbai location has become a fait accompli.” With the Minister accepting the fait accompli “in good faith”, the clearance was as good as given. The only thing left was the matter of negotiating the conditions.

Considering a project for environmental and social clearance under the situation of fait accompli is nothing but pure arm twisting. It is a way of saying that no matter how high these impacts, the project has to go through because it is now irreversible. Unfortunately, this is a norm for many projects in India.

The MoEF press note implies the creation of the fait accompli in two ways. One, by arguing that there is absolutely no other alternative to the project. The MoEF press note describes how several other locations have been suggested but found unsuitable for the airport. Hence, the Navi Mumbai location is the only option left. However, this at best can make the location a fait accompli, but the location is conditional to the airport being established as necessary in the first place. Otherwise, this principle would necessarily make several projects like dams, mines fait accompli, as there are few alternatives regarding their locations. (You can have a mine only where there is a mineral or metal deposit!)

In other words, it is not sufficient for there to be no other alternative location, it is also necessary that the project itself is absolutely indispensable and that its overall benefits far outweigh any adverse impacts. The MoEF press note states that “With the constraints operating at the existing airport, the urgent need for a second airport for Mumbai, a public infrastructure, is obvious.” One hopes that this statement is figurative, for “obviousness” is subjective, and hardly evidence that something is necessary. The necessity of a project does not also automatically follow from the mere fact of it being a public infrastructure.

As I am not familiar with the studies assessing the need for the Navi Mumbai airport, I will accept that they would have been carried out in a comprehensive, transparent manner with ample opportunity for inputs from various stakeholders and stakelosers. However, it is a fact that many projects like dams and power projects are deemed as necessary on the basis of superficial studies, with the argument that the need for water and power is “obvious”, the “national interest” is “obvious”. Once the project is considered as indispensable, then the social and environmental clearances are considered as mere procedural hurdles. This is the case of a project being conceptually a fait accompli as it has to go ahead, no matter what.

The second way in which a project is rendered fait accompli is when work has been done, land has been acquired, money has been spent, or commitments have been made so that it is not possible to go back on the project. In case of Navi Mumbai airport, this factor also seems to be operating. The Government of India had even amended the CRZ Notification 1991 to allow for an airport at Navi Mumbai. The TORs for the Environment Impact Assessment were issued only after this amendment. Many projects in India fall in this category. In the state of Arunachal Pradesh, for example, the state government is taking huge sums of money from private hydropower developers as advances to “allot” projects to them. With such advances, it is difficult for the projects to be later rejected. Another important case is when projects are cleared piecemeal. For example, consider a coal based thermal power project. If the plant is given clearance without the coal mine being cleared, the work on the plant can go ahead, money can be spent and this creates tremendous pressure to accord clearance to the mine. It is learnt that MoEF has just brought out a circular saying that a thermal power plant or steel plant will not be cleared unless the mine is given clearance first. This is a welcome initiative, but needs to be extended to all such projects. Most notorious recent cases have been the Vedanta case where the refinery was functioning but the mine (Niyamgiri) had not been accorded the clearance, and the case of POSCO Steel Plant where the port and steel plant have been given clearance but it is not sure if the other components like the iron ore mines have been given clearances.

In sum, it is clear that while any developmental activity needs a balance between human intervention and environmental impact, such a balance cannot be reached under the condition of fait accompli. Unfortunately, forcing social and environmental clearances under the pressure of fait accompli has been the practice rather than exception in India.

As the processes related to the Navi Mumbai airport had been underway much before Shri Jairam Ramesh became the Minister for Environment and Forest, we can take his acceptance of fait accompli as an honest admission. We only hope that it does not set a dangerous precedent, but rather, the open admission signifies the recognition of a problem and leads to measures to root out such practises.

My New Article on Hydropower Industry's Sustainability Protocol

See my latest article, on the on the International Hydropower Association's Hydropower Sustainability Protocol...

http://www.indiatogether.org/2010/nov/opi-protocol.htm

Peter Bosshard too has a great blog piece on this topic at:

http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/blog/peter-bosshard/2010-11-19/putting-hydro-industry%E2%80%99s-fox-charge-henhouse

Putting the Hydro Industry’s Fox in Charge of the Henhouse?

Bhopal Judgement A Slap in the Face of Victims

The judgement of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, in the gas tragedy-mass murder case comes more as a reminder of the abject helplessness, timidity and lack of political will at best - and collusion at worst - of the Indian state in its readiness and ability to make Corporates accountable, than any sense of justice rendered.

Victims have rightly called it a "slap in our face".

It is one more indication of how Corporates can get away with the worst environmental crimes, especially if they come from the great land of US of A, which particularly makes the Government of India **** in the *****

Tarnished Gold - Dow Chemicals at IIT Bombay Golden Jubilee Gala

Later this week, from 18-20th July 2008, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay’s Golden Jubilee Gala Event takes off in New York. As an alumnus of this august institution, I am proud that it has completed 50 years. Yet, its showcase celebrations in New York leave one with mixed feelings as one of the Gold Sponsors is Dow Chemicals.

On 6th February 2001, Union Carbide Corporation became a fully owned subsidiary of Dow chemicals. UCC was the owner of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), whose factory in Bhopal in December 1984 was responsible for one of worst cases of industrial disasters in history, a reprehensible act resulting from several grossly criminal omissions and commissions. The Bhopal gas leak tragedy killed thousands on 3rd December 1984, and in the 23 years following, has killed thousands more, and has dammed thousands of others to a life of disability and disease. The victims have received neither full compensation nor justice and Bhopal continues to be blot on India’s record of human rights. UCC remains accountable for Bhopal, and as its 100% owners, so does Dow.

As the people of Bhopal continue to suffer, how can IIT Bombay associate with, and lend its credibility to Dow? This is a question that has marred the Golden Jubilee celebrations for me and for many other alumni. Earlier this week, 43 faculty members of IIT Bombay wrote an Open Letter to the organisers of the New York event, urging them to “reject any offer of a relationship with Dow Chemical or any of its Subsidiaries” and in particular “strongly urg[ing] … to refuse sponsorship from Dow Chemical for the 2008 Golden Jubilee Conference, planned for 18-20 July 2008.” The letter notes that UCC is a key accused in a criminal case related to Bhopal disaster, and is a declared absconder as it has not responded to the summons. It mentions several other environmental and legal liabilities of Dow in support of the call. Around 500 others, mainly alumni of IIT Bombay, have signed a Petition which makes a similar call. The organisers of the event have not yet responded to this.

UCC (and by implication Dow), tries to disassociate itself from the Bhopal tragedy by saying that “In 1994, Union Carbide sold its entire stake in UCIL to MacLeod Russell (India) Limited of Calcutta, and UCIL was renamed Eveready Industries India, Limited (Eveready Industries). As a result of the sale of its shares in UCIL, Union Carbide retained no interest in — or liability for — the Bhopal site.” (http://www.bhopal.com/ucs.htm ) This is a specious argument at best, and legally untenable. Sale of UCIL does not relieve UCC of the criminal liability, and it is UCC which is named in the criminal cases, and it is UCC that is the declared absconder. Dow, as 100% owner, is fully accountable for the liabilities of UCC. As recently as February 2008, the Union law ministry of India has underscored that Dow Chemical would have to face all the pending legal liabilities of Union Carbide.

Given all this, it would be unfortunate if IIT Bombay still continues with Dow’s sponsorship of the event. It would certainly taint the Golden Jubilee functions. Lest it be said that this is all last minute, it should be pointed out that many alumni and faculty have been raising this issue for months now.


What about others?

Moreover, this whole discussion also raises the need to go beyond Dow. IIT Bombay, its faculty and its alumni, by their very nature are required to have interactions with the corporate sector. Indeed, there is a need to increase and deepen the relationship between IITs and the corporate sector. Given this, it is very important which corporations IIT Bombay chooses to associate itself with, and chooses not to associate with. This would go also for the alumni associations. This is really critical as the IITs, its various Alumni bodies, and their activities have become very high profile in the recent years. They send strong signals to society, and IITs and its alumni are among the key opinion makers. If this is so, then it is essential that this role be played in a responsible manner. This means that IIT Bombay does not associate itself with corporations (and others) that are at least blatantly guilty of serious violations of environmental, human rights and legal norms.

There are some arguments presented against taking such stands. Sometime back, when there was similar controversy over IITs accepting some funding from Dow chemicals, an alumnus said that “Instead of trying to be holier than thou, and becoming judge, jury and executioner all at once, IITians should let the courts and the legal system take their course, and IITs should be open to taking funds for ethical projects and fellowships from any corporation that abides by the laws of India.”

Leaving aside the Dow case, where UCC is not abiding by Indian law and has been declared absconder, this argument would be useful in a perfect world, where the law, ‘taking its own course’ reaches justice. But the world is not perfect, and India particularly far from it. If one goes by what the law has decided, India would be one of the most corruption free country in the world. Indeed, history (and current events) shows that more often than not, the law and the legal system side with and protect the interests of the powerful and the elite, and tend to neglect or even push aside those of the weaker sections. In any case, issues of environment and human rights go much beyond the mere legal framework.

That is why it is incumbent on society – and its leaders - to take stands (and actions, and extend support) on such matters, if we ultimately want a society based on the principles of justice and fairness. That is why it is important for IIT Bombay and alumni to show that they are not ready to bestow credibility on those responsible for serious social and environmental wrong-doings. We need to show that we are not isolated from larger societal questions in this context.

It is also argued that this is a very difficult thing to do. How do we determine who is blemished and who is not? It is not easy to establish the responsibility of any specific entity in such matters. There are claims and counter claims. The risk of ending up being holier than thou, and playing judge and jury is real. But this should not be a reason for not taking stands - for then we will end up taking stands on virtually nothing - which is in itself a stand! Moreover, if IIT Bombay and its alumni do not want to deal with a problem because it is tough to handle and involves difficult choices – then we should stop patting ourselves on the back.

However, the very fact that many of the alumni and faculty have raised the issue of Dow and have initiated processes making people think indicates that there is willingness to grapple with the issue. The need is to do this in more formal ways, and institutionalise them. May be IIT Bombay, and its various Alumni associations can set up a committee to draw out criteria for accepting sponsorships. There could be a process of wider alumni consultation in this. May be the various alumni gatherings and some of the Golden Jubilee celebration get-togethers could discuss this. I am confident that IITs can set up processes that would help in identifying at least the most blatant offenders.

If sponsorships, funding and support from blatant offenders are refused, it will be an important support to people all over the world struggling against such abuses. It will also send strong signals to society that IIT Bombay and its alumni are concerned about their social responsibility and take it seriously.

Till then, the logo of the likes of Dow will sit at the top of the Golden Jubilee Gala website, (http://gj2008.iitbombay.org/) giving an entirely different meaning to its slogan “Looking Ahead – the Next 50 Years”.

Shripad Dharmadhikary
Shripad Dharmadhikary is an alumnus of IIT Bombay.