How Mundra became India's Rotterdam
- From: vijaysn@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:17:17 -0800 (PST)
An account of how the Mundra multi-product SEZ has steamrolled ahead
over the last few years, clearing forests and environmental hurdles
along the way
The Gulf of Kutch, on the western coast of India in the state of
Gujarat, once referred to by scientists as an ecological miracle for
its shallow waters, intertidal zones, stretch of mangrove forests and
corals, is now the Gulf of Riches, but of a different kind. It is a
concretised hub of ports, refineries and multi-product SEZs, which in
environmental terms would translate to an ecological disaster, already
occurring in parts and waiting to happen in others. Media reports have
highlighted that the four top business houses -- Reliance Industries,
Essar Group, Tatas and the Adanis -- have invested about $34 billion
along the Gulf of Kutch's 700-km-long coastline. While the Tatas may
have bagged a Rs 10,000 crore loan at .01% interest, and the elder
Ambani may be the richest Indian in the world, it is the Adani group
which has the biggest slice of the Gulf. The largest-capacity ultra
mega power plant in the country and a massive multi-product port-based
SEZ in Mundra region of Kutch district are changing the face of the
northern coast of the Gulf of Kutch. Mundra is ‘the Paris of India’,
Chief Minster Narendra Modi had remarked two years ago and now,
according to the director of the Mundra Port and SEZ Limited, also an
ex-IAS officer, Rajeev Sinha, “Mundra is India’s Rotterdam in the
making”.
Unfortunately, little attention is being paid to the unprecedented
environmental and social fall-outs of this makeover. Worse, no one
seems to be talking about the consistent violation of environmental
laws with abetment from the State authorities in transforming Mundra
to Rotterdam.
Engulfing Kutch
The significance of mangroves in coastal ecosystems is undebatable.
The Government of India and the Ministry of Environment and Forests
recognise that mangrove forests are ecologically sensitive areas and
need to be protected and conserved. Mangroves are critical to marine
coastal soil conservation, breeding and nursery grounds for fish,
crustaceans and other sea life, as well as vital habitat for birds and
other wildlife. Kutch district has been declared the most important
mangrove areas in the state of Gujarat.
“Mundra was the region which housed more than 20% of mangroves of the
Gulf of Kutch up until eight years ago when the Adani group of
industries made a small start by developing a private jetty in the
area. The process of deforestation and clearing started in 1998 by the
company. Direct felling, bunding and staving off sea water (leading to
drying up of the mangroves), excavation and filling the area with sand
dredged from the creeks and channels close by were the methods used,”
says Ashwin Zinzuwadia, a journalist and avid nature lover based in
Mundra.
“The Adanis systematically went about expanding, appropriating and
acquiring as much of this land around Mundra as possible once they set
up their base,” he adds. This included forest lands, revenue
wastelands, grazing pastures and agricultural lands for construction
of warehouses, container terminals and other infrastructure like
roads, rail and finally even an airport.
All this was eventually to form part of the grand Mundra SEZ plan to
be spread over 10,000 hectares over 14 villages, with an investment of
Rs 73,000 crores, which was approved at the state level in 2003-04 and
in April 2006 by the Ministry of Commerce at the Centre. The 2004
state approvals were followed by the second phase of intensive
destruction of mangroves in the Bocha, Abhanvadi and Gujarat Maritime
Board areas (near the old port) started in 2005.
A Gujarat Forest Department report by H S Singh, Chief Conservator of
Forests, published in early-2007 talks about “drastic losses of
mangrove forest stem” mainly from industrial activities, specifically
in the Gulf of Kutch. “In certain areas like Mundra and Hazira, they
disappeared overnight,” states Dr Singh. Quoted in this report, the
Mundra SEZ area had 3,000 hectares of mangroves and much of these had
already been cleared.
Forest clearance bungles
Records state that Mundra had about 50 sq km of mangroves under the
forest department. However, a large area of mangroves were not
notified or under un-surveyed lands (under the category of ‘seashore’
land under the revenue department). Thus far, 1,654 hectares of
revenue wasteland and government land have been transferred to the
company by the revenue department. And it is these areas that have
been cleared of mangroves. The legal status of the land as unsurveyed
seashore land has been repeatedly cited as the reason for inaction by
the local forest department.
But even as far as land clearly under the forest department’s
jurisdiction is concerned, the state and local forest authorities have
not moved much. The company in 1998 first applied to the Union
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for a forest clearance (as
required under the Forest Conservation Act 1980) for over 2,400
hectares in the name of Adani Chemicals for a saltworks plant near the
port site. This was rejected because of the presence of 19,00,000
mangrove trees. A revised proposal was submitted by the Adanis for the
same project minus an area of 530 hectares (where dense mangroves
existed). Interestingly, the Forest Advisory Committee of the MoEF,
which looks into Forest Land Diversion Clearances, sat on the proposal
of 1,850 ha up until 2004 on the grounds that the proposed project
area fell under the Coastal Regulation Zone 1 area, considered
ecologically sensitive for such construction activity.
In 2002, the CRZ notification of the MoEF was revised to allow SEZ
development activities on the coast and in 2004 the Forest Advisory
Committee granted the company an in-principle approval for diversion
of 1,850 hectares of forest land. But this clearance was for the
saltworks project. By this time the Adani group had applied for and
received the approval for the Mundra SEZ proposal from the state
government. The in-principle forest diversion clearance granted by the
FAC clearly laid down the condition that change in the user name to
Mundra SEZ from Adani Chemicals would be permissible, but for any
change in land use a fresh application would have to be made to the
MoEF under the Forest Conservation Act 1980.
Why then did the company, which did not operate any saltworks project,
sit with the forest clearance which was clearly only for saltworks?
Local sources report that the company had started related SEZ
development work by 2005 in the area. It was only in September 2007
that the company yet again made an application to the FAC, MoEF, this
time for a change in land use from saltworks to other SEZ-related
activities. The FAC in March 2008 raised questions in this regard,
stating that the earlier impact assessment studies were no longer
valid and that a fresh proposal for the SEZ would have to be made. But
in a volte face the same committee (FAC) granted an in-principle
approval to the change in land use application in April 2008. This
subsequently came under the scanner of the Central Empowered Committee
looking into matters of forest conservation at the Supreme Court
level. THE CEC in its report of July 2008 clearly questioned the
reversal in the FAC’s decision and recommended that the application of
the company and in-principle clearance be rejected. The Supreme Court
looked at the recommendations of the CEC and in October 2008 ordered
that the state government make a fresh proposal to the FAC on the
matter.
Interestingly, apart from all this mess over its earlier proposal, the
company has applied for a forest clearance for an additional area of
1,576 hectares or more. “As per information provided under RTI by the
local forest department this land consists of more than 579,000 trees
of more than 12 to 13 species and is home to more than 23 species of
migratory birds like herons, eagrets and painted storks,” says Bharat
Joshi, an advocate based in Mundra.
Environment clearances and the public hearing drama
Barring the Forest Conservation Act, the other major environmental
legislation that is applicable here is the Coastal Regulation Zone
notification under the Environment Protection Act.
All the impact assessment studies, which are mandatory for clearances
under the CRZ notification, were initially done for the Adani’s Mundra
projects by the National Institute of Oceanography. The concluding
statements in all the reports that are quoted in the state
government’s recommendations are more or less the same. They all speak
of the biodiversity and marine ecology of the area being critical.
They all refer to the localised impacts of the developments, whether
port expansion or bulk terminal construction, on the benthic flora and
fauna of the region. But all of them end with the statement that the
“overall impact would be insignificant”.
Based on these recommendations and EIA studies, four separate
environment clearances have been obtained by the company from the MoEF
since. The first in 1995 followed by three more in 2000, 2004 and 2007
for its expansion activities. Most of the other expansions were based
on only Consents from the state government and no timely Environment
Impact Assessments were done. “The point that the airstrip built by
the Adani group in the area did not have an environmental clearance
from the union ministry was raised in a High Court case filed by local
fishermen in 2006,” points out Mahesh Pandya, an environmental
activist in Ahmedabad.
In 2006, the State Pollution Control Board of Gujarat observed that in
view of the expansion the Adani Port and Mundra SEZ was undertaking,
it should go in for an environmental clearance from the union
ministry. In September 2007, the MoEF’s Expert Advisory Committee
(EAC) considering the matter for environment clearance for the Mundra
SEZ observed that:
“After observation of the facts provided, the Committee was of the
view that at the first stage the project proponent should get the
Coastal Regulation Zone area mapped by Space Application Centre,
Ahmedabad, and National Institute of Oceanography to carry out ground
truthing. The Committee decided that based on the above information
further action would be taken in the matter. Accordingly, the
Committee deferred the project.”
Strangely, last year, amidst its plans for developing the area as an
SEZ which seems to include development of townships, hotels,
infrastructure and multi-product industries, the Mundra Port and SEZ
Limited (MPSEZ) of the Adani group of companies also proposed a
Waterfront Development Plan over an areas of 3,200 hectares that it
has acquired for its project over the last few years. The WFDP is to
be a part of the SEZ and would include development of:
* Total waterfront length of 40 km,
* Total quay length – approx 22,000 m,
* Total numbers of berths – 55 (Including existing 12),
* Cargo handling capacity – 225 MMT, likely to go up further
* Development of port back-up area – 3200 ha.
The application for environment clearance for the SEZ, which was made
earlier, was followed by yet another application for the WFDP to the
EAC in April 2008.
Based on the terms of reference set by the EAC, the project came up
for public hearing in Mundra on November 11, 2008. Bharat Patel, a
member of a local NGO in Mundra called Setu, who managed to download a
part of the Environment Impact Assessment report of the WFDP laments,
“Very cleverly they put 40 MB files on the Pollution Control Board
website. How would the local people who have no access to Internet get
their hands on these documents? Even with the best Internet
connections downloading such heavy files would be a hard task.”
A glance at the EIA clearly reveals that there has been little
groundwork done by the consultants. The EIA unjustifiably portrays the
project area as barren land the development of which would therefore
lack significant environmental impacts.
“The image from Google maps apparently reveals a vast area of natural
marine ecology that would be dredged or filled under the project
proposal. It is highly misleading to characterise this land as
wasteland. The shallow waters and tidal mud flats that comprise this
vast undisturbed area play a vital role in the overall ecology of the
area even if they are not heavily vegetated,” claims Mark Chernaik, a
technical expert of the E-Law Network, who carried out a critical
analysis of the EIA report.
But the real and hard-hitting questions were raised by the local
people on the day of the hearing. While they were shocked that the EIA
says that the proposed project area has no habitation and does not
involve any kind of rehabilitation or resettlement issues, what really
surprised them is that the government, after a decade of the company’s
expansion, asked for a public hearing to take place. Only one
environment clearance public hearing was held during the expansion of
the port before the 2000 environment clearance was granted. “What is
the point of this now, after everything is almost over? They have
destroyed the place and are now asking our opinion,” said many of the
fishermen from the affected villages. A visit to the proposed area for
the West Port of the Water Front Plan reveals that construction work
is in full swing – a complete violation of the Environment Impact
Assessment Notification (2006) which disallows any activity till the
Environment Clearance is granted by the Union Ministry.
Coastal communities bear the brunt
More than 1,000 fishing families of the area have been suffering as a
result of the Adani group’s activities in the region. These are
fisherfolk who fish on small boats and on foot. “Besides fishing in
high seas, about 229 people are involved in direct vending; 73 people
are involved in net making and repairing; whereas about 1,037 people
are involved in processing of fish. It is almost a Rs 100 crore
economy,” states a report prepared by SETU and Yusuf Meherally Centre.
The port and SEZ-related construction have been blocking their
traditional fishing routes apart from completely destroying their
traditional fishing creeks and harbours.
The fishing communities are only one segment of the affected
population. The agriculturists, the horticulturists (date orchards)
and those dependent on animal husbandry have been badly hit as grazing
grounds are shrinking. A total of 14 villages have already lost more
than 1,400 acres of grazing land (under panchayats) to the SEZ.
Maldharis (livestock rearers) came out strongly against the company in
the November 11 public hearing. Says Vaaljibhai from Jharpara village,
where 60% of the families depend completely on livestock rearing, “We
have been protesting against the handover of 1,000 acres of our
gowcher land for the SEZ. We will not let the company set foot on our
grazing lands.” On December 22, the village organised a rally in front
of the Mundra tehsil office and warned that they will bring their
8,000-odd cattle and buffaloes into Mundra town and block all the
roads if the notices to their panchayats (about the handover of
gowcher lands) are not withdrawn.
The other major issues raised at the hearing were of the water crisis
which is affecting irrigation and drinking water needs. The company is
not only extracting groundwater but is also getting water from the
Narmada Canal. In Kutch, 47.5 million litres per day of water from the
Narmada has already been allotted to various industries including the
Adani group.
The company has been speaking of desalination plants since its first
Environment Impact Assessment and not one has been constructed.
Instead it has opted for cheaper options to externalise the costs
considering that it has to pay almost Rs 10/ 1,000 litres for the
Narmada water. In addition to that, the company and its subcontractors
are taking large quantities of water from tanker suppliers for
construction and other domestic use. All this has already started
showing significant negative impact on the area's groundwater and
increase in salinity. Not that the desalination plants of large
capacities would not be harmful. “The salt extracted would be dumped
into the nearby seas and creeks making it impossible for marine fauna
to survive,” adds Michael Mazgaonkar of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, an
environment action group in Gujarat.
When revenue land in the area was purchased by the company, all the
letters issued by the Collector had some conditions which included
allowing the natural drainage patterns to remain unaffected, the
traditional paths and roads not to be blocked etc. The Adanis have
just not cared about these conditions. Bunds 15-20-km long have been
constructed for filling the land which have totally blocked the
natural drainage systems as a result of which Mundra town was
virtually flooded in the last monsoon with rivers draining into the
Gulf of Kutch being completely blocked.
For those who have no assets in many of the villages in Mundra,
charcoal-making with Prosopis Juliflora (grown on common and
wastelands) is the only source of income. Earlier the forest
department had been placing restrictions on chopping of trees for
fuelwood but now most of the lands have been bought off by the Adanis
and the locals are considered trespassers if they go into their area
for wood. One example of such a village is Sukhapar, located adjacent
to the SEZ and port. Of the 450 households that live here almost all
depend on charcoal-making for a livelihood. They are now severely
deprived of any livelihood opportunity.
From 1998 onwards, NGOs, community organisations, village panchayatsand fishing communities have raised these issues consistently with the
district revenue and forest departments, state government, State Human
Rights Commission and the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The two
big agitations happened in Jharpara in 2000 when the Navinal creeks
were occupied and in Shekhadiya when the airstrip was being built.
Apart from this the matter has been reported in several newspapers and
magazines on a regular basis. But there has been virtually no response
from the authorities. Each time a demand has been made asking for an
immediate halt to any further clearances and expansion of the MPSEZL
project and an independent inquiry to investigate the destruction of
the marine ecosystem of the Gulf of Kutch, it has been followed by
announcements of expansions spelling doom for the local communities of
Mundra, now clamped in the grip of several SEZs and megaprojects along
their coasts.
The forest and environment department, on every occasion they have
been questioned, have spoken of the “re-plantation of mangroves
initiative by the forest department to compensate the losses”, knowing
very well that no amount of re-plantation can replace the existing
ecosystems and absorb people’s dependence. Early this year a PIL on
the issue of creeks and paths to harbours being blocked, was filed in
the apex court by Imran Salim Jath, belonging to the Wagher fishing
community. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition asking for the
petitioners to approach the High Court first. The High Court asked
departments like the Gujarat Maritime Board to investigate the matter.
Unfortunately the GMB gave a clean chit to the company. In December
2008, the petitioners, disappointed with the High Court’s verdict,
went back to the apex court with a Special Leave Petition. After the
first hearing the Supreme Court has issued notices to the state
government and other authorities. It remains to be seen if the
judicial process will expose the inaction and mess-ups in the Mundra
case and provide relief to the people at the receiving end. The fact
that Adani’s Mundra projects have an SEZ status will make the legal
battle even tougher with the central SEZ Act 2005 and Gujarat’s own
SEZ legislation providing a reprieve to developers from stringent
environmental legislations.
(Manshi Asher is a researcher-activist. This article is based on
recent research conducted by her in the area)
InfoChange News & Features, December 2008
http://infochangeindia.org/200812277554/Trade-Development/Features/How-Mundra-became-India-s-Rotterdam.html
.
- Prev by Date: Re: EARN UP TO 18% INVESTING IN COSTA RICA AGRO INDUSTRY
- Next by Date: Dark clouds over India’s sponge iron industry
- Previous by thread: Re: EARN UP TO 18% INVESTING IN COSTA RICA AGRO INDUSTRY
- Next by thread: Dark clouds over India’s sponge iron industry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
