life in financial markets & general: another example of illegal acts in the name of development

I have written several posts here on my blog on how in the name of development, the government, industrialists, companies, economists and consumers are violating human rights and environmental laws. I share below another instance of this taking place in India. It involves the largest freshwater lake in India. 

(the image given alongside is of Loktak lake in Manipur state of India & is courtesy http://www.manipur.org/photos/general/view.php?3)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1112/S00818/india-police-assault-protesting-women-at-loktak-lakke.htm

India: Police Assault Protesting Women at Loktak Lake
Friday, 30 December 2011, 1:47 pm
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission

28 December 2011
------------------------------------------------------
INDIA: Manipur police assault protesting women at Loktak Lake

ISSUES: Violence against women; torture and inhuman treatment; forced eviction; corruption; indigenous communities
-------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from the Citizens' Concern for Dams and Development, Manipur concerning a brutal police action upon women protesting against the forced eviction at Loktak Lake. The incident happened on 19 December. It is reported that about 10 women were injured in the incident when the police baton-charged the protesting women. The police also fired about 200 rounds to disperse the protesters, but have failed in doing so. The women are protesting against the state government's forced eviction of dwellers on the Loktak Lake who have been living on the floating vegetable mass on the lake for generations.

In an earlier Urgent Appeal (AHRC-UAC-237-2011) issued by the AHRC on 18 November 2011, we had reported that the state government is setting on fire huts in order to evict the dwellers from Loktak Lake. The women assaulted on 19 December are those who had lost everything to the government's eviction drive and had been protesting peacefully since then. Though the police officers came to the protest scene with full force armed with assault rifles, there was not a single woman police officer at the scene, contrary to the mandate in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 and in direct violation of the Supreme Court's directives concerning police action against women. The national media in India have been largely avoiding reportage of the event, which the people from Manipur rightly claim depicts the extent of discrimination practiced by the rest of the country, including by its media against the region.

CASE NARRATIVE:

The following is the narrative of the incident as provided by the Citizens' Concern for Dams and Development.

At least 10 women from the Meitei community in Manipur in India's North East campaigning against the controversial Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, were seriously injured in the brutality unleashed by the Manipur state police at Thanga Chingjin, Manipur on 19 December 2011. All the injured women were taking part in a protest rally, organised by the All Loktak Lake Fishermen's Union and the All Manipur Thanga People's Welfare Association demanding the repeal of the Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, under which the Loktak Development Authority and the Manipur police have unleashed widespread arson and destruction of floating huts over Phumdis, a floating vegetation mass, in Manipur since 15 November 2011 despite stiff opposition by the affected families.

The protest rally commenced from Thanga Chingyang Hill until the Manipur police stopped it at Thanga Chingjin in Bishenpur district. The Officer-in-Charge of Moirang Police Station, Mr. Dhananjoy was leading the police. The police in an attempt to disperse the protestors resorted to baton charge, physical assault and even firing of about 200 live rounds. The incident has caused shock and panic among the community members, who are already under shock from the burning of their houses. No women police officers were involved in the crackdown of the protest, which mostly comprised of women and elderly people. This is a clear violation of the Criminal Procedure Code 1974. The police physically assaulted the women in the incident.

The injured women were taken to Community Health Centre Moirang. One of them, Ms Oinam Akasini, wife of Oinam Tomba is in a serious condition and has been referred to the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences. The condition of Ms Khwairakpam Thambalmala and Ms Heisnam Ashangbi also is serious and they are advised to undergo further medical checkups.

During the protest rally at Thanga, the protesters demanded the repeal of the Loktak Lake Protection Act 2006 and demanded that the prohibition for fishing and building huts in Loktak Lake to be withdrawn by the state government. They were also protesting against the absence of free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous communities living in the Loktak wetlands in the management and protection measures taken concerning the Lake and against the restrictions imposed upon the communities over the use and dependence on lake. A vital aspect of this division is the ban on building huts or houses on phumdis inside the lake, planting athaphum, or engaging in athaphum-fishing in the core area.

The prohibition will adversely affect over 10,000 people living in phumdi huts, as well as others dependent on Loktak Lake. Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, divides the Lake into two zones - a core zone comprising 70.30 sq km, which is declared a 'no development zone', or 'totally protected zone', and a buffer zone of other areas of the lake excluding the core zone.

The police action targeting the indigenous women defending their right to life and survival means is a direct violation of their rights as human rights defenders. The incident also violates the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The failure to seek consent of the affected communities before the enactment or the eviction drive is a form of discrimination targeting marginalised communities. It also violates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The arson and destruction of floating huts and livelihood of the indigenous people living in Loktak Lake constitute a serious violation of the "right to life", "right to adequate housing" as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and as provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The burning of huts of the indigenous people depending on the Loktak Wetlands for survival violates the Ramsar Convention, in particular resolutions VII. 8 of Ramsar Convention's Conference of contracting parties held in May 1999 at Costa Rica and Resolution VIII. 19 held in Spain in November 2002. The two documents provide guidelines for establishing and strengthening local communities and indigenous people's participation and to consider the cultural values of wetlands in the management of wetlands. India is a contacting party to the convention since 1 February 1982.

Nearly the Loktak Development Authority and the Manipur police have already burnt 1147 floating huts since 15 November 2011. These floating huts were used by the indigenous Meitei people for fishing and also as a refuge for landless people who were earlier displaced by the Ithai Barrage of the Loktak Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project, which has inundated nearly 80,000 Hectares of prime agricultural land since its commissioning in 1984. The fishing gears and nets of the communities, the only survival means to catch fish from the Loktak wetlands were also burned which has left the community in further misery. For generations people have been living in floating huts in localities like Khuman Yangbi, Nambul Machin and Karang Sabal within the Loktak Lake. The affected family members including women, children and the elderly had been seeking refuge at Thanga Chingyang Community Hall in Bishenpur district, Manipur.

Each household was offered Rs. 40,000 as compensation by the government before their huts were burned. However, most of the villagers rejected this payment, as the amount is not adequate to compensate their livelihood and survival means. In addition, there is no process to rehabilitate the affected villagers and their right to free, prior and informed consent has not been sought so far. The worst of all is that in many cases, the police at gunpoint had been forcing the displaced families to set on fire their huts.

The government of Manipur, though its Loktak Development Authority has been blaming the indigenous peoples dwelling in Loktak lake for polluting and causing contamination of the Lake. However, the Ithai Barrage of the Loktak Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project, commissioned in 1984, has led to large-scale devastation of Loktak wetlands, its ecosystem, loss of indigenous plant and faunal species, disturbance of the wetlands natural balance and cleansing system leading to pollution and an alarming increase in siltation from the rivers.

Despite all these, the national and Manipur governments in their official publications and calendars, highlight the phumdi and the people living on floating huts, as a tourist attraction. During the current Sangai Tourism Festival (21-30 November 2011), the Loktak Lake and traditional floating fishing community has been also showcased. Experts attending the one day discussion on "Contradictions of Ramsar Conventions Standards and Guidelines with Loktak Wetlands Management in Manipur" organised by the All Loktak Lake Areas Fishermen's Union and All Manipur Thanga People's Welfare Association at the Conference Hall of Manipur State Central Library, Imphal on 17 December had recommended the repeal of the Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Government of Manipur has long targeted the Loktak Lake for corruption and manipulations. A sample of the extent of money being spent in the name of preserving Loktak Lake is available here. Interestingly, the Project Director of the Loktak Development Authority, Mr. Ibobi Singh has issued the "Utilisation Certificate" for large sums of money, allegedly used for preserving the lake and its ecosystem.

The National Human Rights Commission has directed the Government of Manipur to institute an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the corruption concerning the clearing of phumdi by a company named K Pro Infra Works Private Ltd. A report about the fictitious company and the millions those associated with the dredging project reported in an independent investigative magazine Tehelka is reproduced below:

The Lake And The Fake Firm

Why was a Rs 224-cr project to clean up Manipur's Loktak Lake given to a ghost outfit, asks Kunal Majumder.

The author can be contacted at kunal@tehelka.com
The original article published in Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 13, Dated April 03, 2010, could be viewed at www.tehelka.com/story_main44.asp?filename=Ne030410the_lake.asp

At a grandiose function in Imphal on January 6 this year, Manipur Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh handed over the ceremonial keys of the Rs 224 crore-Loktak Lake clean-up project to representatives of a company that does not exist. On paper, K Pro Infra Works Private Ltd, which won the contract, has a Delhi address. But on the ground, Flat No A-104, Plot No 29 (New Friends Apartment), Sector 6, Dwarka, is a private residential property with no one currently living in it. Guards at Plot No 29 say a lot of people visit the flat, though it is not known who these itinerant visitors are. "They stay only for a few days," said one of the guards who asked not to be named. Significantly, while the address of K Pro Infra Works figures in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website, information like the "company" website and its phone number is missing.

The clean-up project involves removing 132.94 lakh cubic metres of phumdis - the local name for the thick biomass that is filling up the largest fresh water lake in the Northeast, around 40 km from Imphal.

Deferring to an age-old ritual, the 62- year-old Ibobi Singh watched a K Pro Infra Works dredger scoop out the phumdis and load the waste onto a truck - after which he left. And the photo-ops over, so did the dredger, the trucks and the representatives of K Pro Infra Works. But considering it was registered only on June 22, 2009 and has a paid-up capital of just Rs 10 lakh, it must be asked how the "company" managed to buy dredgers costing Rs 40 lakh each. A press release of the Loktak Development Authority (LDA) claims that K Pro Works Private Limited (the word 'Infra' dropped) is a joint venture with Progressive Constructions Limited which posted a gross turnover of Rs 1019.91 during 2007-08. It isn't clear whether this is a typing error or the real figure, as neither the company nor LDA is willing to comment.

THE OTHER puzzle is that while Ibobi Singh cut the red ribbon on January 6, the on-paper process of cleaning up the lake had started nearly two years ago. This was the same period - spanning 2008-09 - when the Planning Commission made a Special Plan Assistance (SPA) of Rs 25 crore to Manipur for "conservation and management of Loktak Lake and associated wetlands". In the progress report submitted to the Planning Commission (a copy of which is in TEHELKA's possession) the Project Director of Loktak Development Authority (LDA), Thounaojam Ibobi Singh, claimed that Rs 16.5 crore was given to K Pro Infra Works Pvt Ltd as "mobilisation advance" for phumdi management.

But the lie is easily nailed. For again, how can a contract be given in financial year 2008-09 (that ends on March 31, 2009) to a company that was founded in June 2009? The final Utilisation Certificate issued by LDA shows that, in all, Rs 17.8 crore has so far been spent on phumdi, water and project management and administration; and the remaining Rs 7.2 crore on conservation and the management of Loktak Lake and associated wetlands.

On November 20, 2009, DS Poonia, Chief Secretary in the Manipur government, had sought an additional Rs 65 crore for the project from the Planning Commission under the Special Plan Assistance 2009-10. Sarvan Kumar, Director, Special Plan-North East at the Planning Commission, confirmed to TEHELKA that the amount requested had been sanctioned. Poonia's letter to SN Brohmo Choudhury, Adviser, Special Plan (North-East), Planning Commission, reveals that the Commission had sought detailed information on the project. Among other things, it had wanted to know the steps that had been taken to engage an accredited institution for third party monitoring. It was also suggested that the government too should closely monitor the project work and submit its reports to the Planning Commission.

The government's response was depressingly familiar. It merely set up two committees to "look into the matter".

Indeed, all the paper trails and local media reports point strongly at the possibility of a major scam brewing in Imphal. Coincidentally, even as this report was being filed, a senior Manipur Cabinet minister was in Delhi at the invitation of the Congress leadership to discuss with Rahul Gandhi the corruption charges against the CM, and how the list keeps getting fatter. Requesting anonymity, the minister said: "I did present evidences to various senior Union ministers and party leaders about the way the Chief Minister is minting money in the state." He even alleged that K Pro Infra Works was actually owned by a top politician's 'natural' son.

Repeated attempts to get a response from the Chief Minister failed. Diana Potsangbam, press officer of LDA, said the project director, Thounaojam Ibobi Singh, could not speak till he had the consent of the CM and directed this correspondent to check LDA's website www.loktak.org which is in Russian! (This website is not in operation anymore).

Now how does one interpret this?

life in general & financial markets: industrialists & politicians get together manipulate good environmental laws

Below is an article written by Centre for Science and Environment's Sunita Narain which talks about an isssue which is yet another revelation of how industrialists, companies and politicians get together to violate good environmental laws

http://downtoearth.org.in/content/bogey-green-clearances

The bogey of green clearances

Sunita Narain

Issue: Oct 31, 2011

The environment is holding up growth and economic development. This is the common refrain in circles that matter. So when the Group of Ministers tasked to resolve the issue of coal mining in forests asked for a report on what needs to be done, it was told that the best would be to dismantle green conditions, almost completely.

The B K Chaturvedi committee recommends that all coal mining projects should be given automatic clearance, with exceptions only for projects in “dense” areas. There is no definition of “dense”, of course, or an understanding of the importance of forests for water and livelihood. Then the committee wants all those provisions that seek to protect the rights of people or the environment to be relaxed. It recommends that the gram sabha, required to give consent to the project, should be held without a quorum. In other words, democracy should be sidelined. Similarly, public hearings should be done away with when it comes to expansion of the current mines. It also recommends that even in areas identified critically polluted new projects should be allowed without check. It has no time to waste on such minor considerations as the health of the people who live in these regions. The horrendous cumulative impacts of these massive projects must be ignored, because we are a nation in a hurry, it says.

This report reflects the general mood. It is for this reason the proposed manufacturing policy, which seeks to create massive areas as national investment manufacturing zones, wants none of these inconvenient green checks. It wants to take away all powers of the environment and forest clearances from the Centre and state agencies and hand them over to the project proponent.

But are green clearances holding up projects? My colleagues spent days poring over the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests’ publicly available database to seek answers. What they found should make us wonder why there is such a hue and cry about the environment as an impediment to growth. In fact, the reverse is true: green clearances are certainly failing to safeguard the environment. This is what should concern us. Make us angry.

First, it should be understood that the scale and pace of green clearances have been unprecedented in the past five years. In fact, the pace doubled, with 203,576 hectares (ha) of forestland diverted for mining and industrial projects in the past five years. Coal mining accounted for more than half the forestland diverted, and as many as 113 coal mining projects were cleared—the highest in a five-year plan since 1981.

Secondly, clearances when added together overshoot the current and future targets. Take power projects. The 11th Five Year Plan targets 50,000 MW of additional thermal power capacity to be created till 2012. In the 12th plan the proposal is to add another 100,000 MW. This is what needs to be built and set up till 2017. Now consider this: in the past five years, till August 2011, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests has granted clearances for an astounding 210,000 MW of thermal power capacity, that is 60,000 MW more than what has been proposed till 2017. Now also consider the fact that the thermal power capacity built in the past five years was a mere 32,394 MW. What is going on? Why are new projects asking for clearances when the old, cleared projects are still not being built? Is this a land-water-coal scam, given that each project sits on valuable natural resources? Or is it all about getting the licence to pollute?

Take the cement industry. At the end of the 10th plan, India’s installed capacity was 179 million tonnes per annum (MTPA). During the 11th plan, green clearances have been given to an additional 190 million tonnes per annum, which takes the combined capacity to 369 MTPA, far beyond what is operational or what is proposed as the target for this period. This is true for virtually all the industrial sectors we analysed.

There is another layer of misinformation. Coal shortage is being cited as the reason for underperformance of the energy sector, which, in turn, is leading to a strident call to open up more forested regions for digging. The fact is Coal India Limited (CIL) produces over 90 per cent of India’s coal; it controls over 200,000 ha of mine lease, including 55,000 ha of forest area. The estimated coal reserves with CIL are 64 billion tonnes, and the company produces 500 million tonnes per annum. Who is then responsible for the shortage of coal in the country?

What is clear, instead, is that in this haste to give clearances, it is the environment that is being short-changed. Most mining districts of the country have become a living hell. More are emerging as the hotbeds of thermal, mining and industrial projects, and nobody wants to fix the horrendous environmental fallout of this growth.

What needs to be done? In my view, environmental regulations should be strengthened, not weakened. Growth managers must look for other reasons they are failing in pushing up industry numbers. More importantly, environmentalists must see how the regulatory regime can be worked better. This is the agenda that matters.

life in general & financial markets: smell the industrial pollution

I do not travel much. But whenever I have, and have done so by rail or road, and from one state to another, I have passed by certain areas where I have had the unpleasant experience of smelling nauseous gases emitting from industries. This is more acute when traveling past these areas in the night when there would be no vigilance by state authorities. In my limited travel experience I can point out two such notorious places -- Baroda in Gujarat and a place in Uttaranchal Pradesh that comes on the way from Delhi to Dehra Dun by train.

Industrial pollution is not quite felt by urban India as the factories that spew out deadly gases in the air or release toxic liquid and solid waste on the ground. But it is felt by the villagers and small-town folk who live in or around these remote areas. In these areas, industrial pollution is on a rampage in our country and I am sure in many other countries as well.

It is so because influential people such as politicians, bureaucrats, conscious and articulate elite, and media editors reside in urban areas and do not acutely experience the consequences. Each state in our country has a pollution control board and a vast majority of them have a miserable track record of bringing accountability to the polluters, large or small. We do have strong environment laws passed by the central government and various state governments but they are largely on paper.

Among the heavy industrial pollutants that cause the most damage, when allowed to emit without control, are ones spewed out by sponge iron industry (used to make steel), petrochemicals industry, pesticide-manufacturing companies, coal-based power plants, basic chemicals industry and oil refineries.

It is not that industries and companies, at least a few of them, are not using technology or processes to curtain the toxic emissions, but the rate of growth of production by industrial India is far more than the rate of use of pollution-control mechanisms.

Even though the environment regulators at the state and central level may be sleeping, I believe we, the urban people, can make a difference. All industrial production goes into making various products and articles that we, urbanites, consume. We can curtail such production by moderating our consumption. Every effort counts.

life in general & financial markets: (part 2) the farce that is india's environment ministry

(click here for part 1 blogpost dated 31 Jan 2011)

There is an insightful story in the latest issue (dated 7 Feb '11) of weekly Outlook magazine on India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh's failure to deliver on the ground. I share it below.

Here goes (pics below are from Outlook's story itself):

Sandipan Chatterjee

It won’t rain forever Vedanta bauxite refinery plant in the Niyamgiri hills, Orissa

The Green Turns Grey

The environment minister promised much, but his flip-flops of late raise concern

Anuradha Raman

Mr Compromised

• Vedanta In ’09, Jairam said no to mining. Now says yes to refinery expansion though water is scarce.
• Polavaram dam Gives forest clearance, then seeks explanation
• Posco Under litigation as the ministry says yes to forest clearance for iron ore/steel plant
• Lavasa township Ministry report says ecologically sensitive Ghats will be affected. Later, Jairam lets off promoters with a fine.
• National Green Tribunal Set up after dismantling the National Environment Tribunal. It allows any party (including violators) to appeal against decisions.

Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh is fast discovering that striking a balance between the environment, wildlife, coastal zones, forests and corporate lobbies can be quite a minefield. On one side, whispers abound on how the minister missed out on being elevated to cabinet rank because of his green-is-my-favourite-colour theme song while, on the other, environmentalists express disappointment that he has not lived up to all the promises made. While no one disputes that the minister has raised awareness (or that he is a huge improvement on his predecessors), a perception is gaining ground that the minister has not quite delivered.

Indeed, the U-turns done by the ministry under his stewardship has baffled many. Vedanta, Polavaram, the Lavasa township and the coastal regulatory laws are some of the big issues on which Jairam not only appears to have backtracked but also compromised. And we are not even talking of the smaller projects that have not got much media attention. Somewhere down the line, the minister appears to have lost the goodwill of the very people whose causes he wants to champion. He says (see interview) he’s got his share of brickbats and bouquets. But such admissions alone will not help. Says Himanshu Thakkar of South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), “One expected transparent, participatory, environment-friendly policies and practices from someone who claims he believes in these values. When you do not see that, one is disappointed.”

Himanshu adds here that Jairam is more accessible and responsive than his predecessor, A. Raja, and initial action taken on projects like Posco, Vedanta, Adarsh apartments, the Navi Mumbai airport, the Lavasa project and  Maheshwar, among others, are welcome in parts. But there have also been many reversals, which some activists describe as the result of “a forked-tongue approach”. There are many who argue the minister should have initiated systemic actions. “Systems on compliance, transparency, better EIAS (environment impact assessments), greater participation by the affected people, nailing the fraudulent officers in charge of projects are some of the things he should have done. The minister hasn’t, raising doubts on whose side he is batting for.”

The environmentalists say inaction has led to a lot of confusion on the approval of big projects. For example, Jairam’s public utterings showing his willingness to allow the Vedanta refinery to expand after saying no to mining has muddied matters. “Where is the water for the refinery going to come from? Vedanta has already exhausted the streams nearby,” says Shankar Balakrishnan of Campaign for Survival and Dignity. Adds Himanshu, “While the minister earned praise for saying no to mining, he is sending confusing signals by agreeing to the expansion of the refinery.”

Similarly on Posco, Shankar argues that the ministry has not taken into account the views of the local people. “The Forest Rights Act needs to be complied with. But how come the environment ministry keeps giving approvals and then puts conditions? It’s confusing,” he says. Posco’s iron-ore mine, steel plant and private port (India’s largest foreign investment of Rs 52,000 crore) was granted forest clearance in 2009 and then a condition was added that it was subject to clearance of the Forest Rights Act (FRA)! Later, under pressure, a committee was appointed by the ministry to look at the FRA clearance under the stewardship of an official, in whose tenure an environment clearance was given to the project way back in ’05.
In Andhra Pradesh, there’s the controversial Polavaram dam which threatens to displace close to two lakh people, another example of how Jairam’s ministry approves and then disapproves. His ministry gave a forest clearance on July 28, 2010, without looking into the rights of the people. Prior to Jairam taking over, an environment clearance had already been sought for the project in ’05. While Jairam wrote in October 2010 to the Andhra CM enquiring whether the concerns of the local community had been factored in, little has come of it so far.

The Polavaram project threatens to displace mostly people from the marginalised adivasi communities. The project requires approximately 3,700 hectares of forest land as well as the sanction of the majority of these communities (who are entitled under the Forest Rights Act). The ministry granted the final forest clearance for the project in December ’09, stating that the approval is based on the assurance of the Andhra government that there are no rights to be settled under the Forest Rights Act in the project area. This, when the ministry’s own circular requires that the gram sabhas—not the state government—have to certify to the proper implementation of the law and have to grant their consent.

The ministry’s conditional clearance to the Lavasa township, said to have the backing of Congress ally, the NCP, is also intriguing. As per the environment ministry report, the Rs 3,000-crore hill town near Pune threatens to impact the Western Ghats. But now the builders have been let off with just a rap on the knuckles—in this case just a penalty.

Levelled off Aerial view of the Lavasa cityscape, in the core of the Western Ghats. (Photograph by Apoorva Salkade)

Adding to the list of damp squibs is Jairam’s inability to put transparent systems in place. Right from when he took over, environment groups had advised that conflict of interest rules be spelt out clearly, especially when it came to appointments on the Environment Assessment Committee on river valley and hydroelectric projects. The committee’s objective is to evaluate the environmental and social impacts of large dams and also look at no-dam options, and decide if the impact of the proposals are acceptable or not and if the project is viable.

The ministry has done little to appoint people with the right credentials. The current chairperson is a man who has served on the National Committee of the International Commission on Large Dams (INCOLD), a rabidly pro-large dam organisation which essentially works as a lobbying mechanism!

Meanwhile, what is really troubling environmentalists is the undue haste the ministry is showing in approving projects. Says Ritwick Datta, a lawyer who sought information under the RTI Act, “The minister’s own response was that as many as 535 projects of the total 769 projects have been approved and six were rejected! The period for which information was sought was from August 1, 2009, till July 31, 2010.”

On his part, Jairam says he is no enviro-caliph. But it’s time he becomes one, say environment experts.

life in general & financial markets: (part 1) the farce that is india's environment ministry

(click here for part 2 blogpost dated 2 Feb '11)

(pic shown below is courtesy http://article.wn.com/view/2010/07/16/Orissa_farmers_reject_new_Posco_package/#5)

The Congress Party-ruled government of India is notorious for cunning, but ugly and corrupt, use of the vast power it wields as the ruling government of the country.

In appointing a reasonably honest person, Jairam Ramesh, as the environment, the Congress government was being cunning as it tended to give an illusion of seriousness with regard to shoddy implementation of environment laws of India.

But even Jairam Ramesh has not been able to hold out against the extremely powerful, but dirty, forces within the Congress Party and its allies in the ruling government.  

Today, the environment ministry has given approval to a large steel project of Korean steel company, Posco, in the eastern Indian state of Orissa. The conditions that have been applied to the project would have anyway applied to any major project. But the violations that Posco committed have attracted no hard action by the government. The only thing that Jairam Ramesh could do was put on hold the project for a few weeks. That is all.

I am confident that the Congress Party-ruled government, or any other future government of India, will pay heavily for their horrendous track record with regard to environmental and people's basic rights including that of livelihood and property.

Here is what a press release, issued today, from a Orissa-based group, comprising of people affected by the Posco steel project had to say on the matter:

POSCO PRATIRODH SANGRAM SAMITI

Dhinkia, Nuagaon, Gadkujang; Jagatsinghpur District, Orissa

PRESS RELEASE: 31 January 2011

Scandalous Decision of Jairam Ramesh to OK POSCO project

Environment Minister disregards findings of his own Review and Statutory Clearances Committees

The decision of Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh to give a comprehensive OK to the POSCO India Steel-Power Production-Captive Port project, based on some additional conditions, is nothing short of a total sell out to the politics of power and international capital. In a climate where each and every Minister of the Union Government is tumbling over with scandals, Ramesh had stood tall taking one brave legally and ethically correct decision after another. An acid test for him to continue this streak of decision making in the wider public interest, keeping in view intergenerational interests as well, was about the POSCO project. By his decision today to clear the project Ramesh has failed not only his own legacy, but has attacked the very rule of law based decision making that he has so often been harping on to be the basis of his functioning.

It is well known that the POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samithi, a peaceful movement of affected communities, has been systematically raising the deep, inter-generational and irreversible impacts of allowing this massive project to come up in the ecologically sensitive Jagatsinghpur district of Orissa. This struggle began with the inking of a most controversial MOU between Orissa State and Korea's Pohang Steel (POSCO) in 2005, proposing to establish the largest industrial project ever conceived in human history: a 12 MTPA steel plant backed by captive power plant; a captive port (described as “small” but designed to receive the largest commercial ships ever built - of CAPESIZE variety); a large township to accommodate over 100000 people; a large captive mine in Kandadhar (600 MT for local processing and 400 MT for export over 30 years); fresh water intake from over 100 kms. away (while denying many towns and cities drinking water) and extensive road and rail infrastructure to support the project.

The 4000 acres of land chosen for the plant site comprise of pristine coastal and deltaic ecosystems, with active nesting sites for the critically endangered Olive Ridley Turtles and the Horse Shoe Crabs. Over a third of this land comprises of coastal forests. Over 22000 people will be directly displaced by the steel plant alone, a number that has been repeatedly disputed by Orissa Government based on its spurious claims. Absolutely no impact assessment of any academic rigour worth its salt or regulatory review of value considering the mega scale of this project, has at all been conducted to support the project is environmentally and socially useful. In fact, the so-called Rapid Environment Impact Assessment reports prepared by M/s Dastur for POSCO India, was only for 4 MTPA steel production and not for the entire project as is required by law. Clearly against statutory standards and norms, the project was still accorded environmental, forest and coastal regulation zone clearances in 2007. In addition, the Orissa Government engaged the National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER) to cook up data claiming the benefits from the project as phenomenal, which when verified even cursorily proved to be junk statistics supporting desperate political games promoting the project.

Following what is widely regarded as a politically brave but legally correct decision of Jairam Ramesh to reject on grounds of fraud the clearance accorded to the infamous Vedanta Bauxite project in Orissa during 2010, the much larger POSCO issue came into focus. After all communities affected by POSCO had been engaged for over 5 years in the most outstanding example of peaceful resistance against such unprecedented unjust development. Bending to reason, Mr. Ramesh agreed to constitute a sub-Committee under the N. C. Saxena Committee reviewing Forest Rights Act implementation, to also enquire if the POSCO project's forest clearances were compliant with the Forests Rights Act enacted only in 2006. Producing their report the Committee put beyond any reasonable doubt that the forest clearances accorded were in comprehensive violation of the Forest Rights Act. A right step taken soon after by the Minister was to stay the forest clearance accorded - a decision taken that was taken at a time when brutal dislocation of forest dwelling communities was underway by the Orissa Government.

Subsequently, Ramesh ordered an independent enquiry into all aspects of the project's clearance coordinated by Ms. Meena Gupta, former MoEF Environment Secretary, with Mr. Devendra Pandey (IFS, Retd.), former Director of Forest Survey of India, Mr. V. Suresh, Advocate and PUCL activist and Dr. Urmila Pingle, expert on tribal affairs, as members. Following three months of deliberate and extensive consultations, and also detailed investigation into all aspects of the clearances accorded, and on the basis of detailed verification of compliance review files the Committee by a majority decision (3:1) comprehensively rejected all the clearances granted to the project. Ms. Meena Gupta who stood up for the POSCO project, dubiously recommended additional conditions to adjust against serious statutory violations and fraud in the decision making process – a line of thinking that Jairam Ramesh now scandalously subscribes to.

In the subsequent review by Statutory Appraisal Committees of the MoEF, the Committees reviewing the Forest and Coastal Clearances recommended withdrawal of clearances granted. The only Committee that proposed a go-ahead was the one reviewing the environmental impacts under the EIA Notification. It was for Ramesh to now decide on the right steps to be taken to correct this gross injustice and irregularities in environmental decision making. In the face of extensive burden of proof of fraud involved in securing clearances for the POSCO project, the matter should legally have been to withdraw clearances accorded – as in the Vedanta case. This was the time to test the honesty of a man to stand up and uphold Constitutional and Ethical values, regardless of any and all forms of pressures. Jairam Ramesh has miserably failed this test.

The report presented today by Jairam Ramesh is nothing but a capitulation to corrupt forces both within India and abroad. ........... 

For the single largest project FDI investment in India at 2005 prices (Rs. 51,000 crores or USD 12 billion capital cost), analysis reveal that this investment can be recovered in less than a decade given the pittance of a royalty that POSCO will pay for iron ore extracted. (Rs. 30/tonne at the official ore valuation of Rs. 300/tonne, compared with the commercial value of Rs. 7,000/tonne). It is to make such unprecedented profits from the plunder of India's natural resources that POSCO demanded a coastal location for its super large CAPESIZE ships to be berthed to cart away our precious iron ore. What India would be left with is the toxic residue of its dirty ore processing, while the refined ore (perhaps not even the finished steel) would be exported to Korea and elsewhere to add more value to POSCO's profits. This is not merely a flight of the nation's natural wealth but also a massive planned political exercise for erosion of financial resources with questionable legal sanction.....................

Abhay Sahoo

President

09556666552

Prashant Paikray

Spokesperson

09437571547

prashantpaikray@gmail.com

POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samithi