Mundra Hit Rakshak Manch[1]

(Forum for Protection of Rights in Mundra)      

Mundra Taluka, Kutch District, Gujarat

21^st November 2013

Shri Harshad Patel

District Collector, Kutch District

Bhuj, Gujarat

Subject:District Level Implementation of the critical clauses of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), 2011 notification.

Dear Shri Patel,

Greetings on World Fisheries day from the members of the Mundra Hit Rakshak Manch. We are a forum of affected people and mass based organisations who have been raising concerns related to large scale industrial expansion in the Mundra region of Kutch district of Gujarat. While we have been raising concerns at an individual level in our villages we have now come together as part of the Mundra Hitrakshak Manch.

As you are aware, the Kutch coast is not just a unique ecological hotspot but its vast inter-tidal zone and inland areas have support a variety of livelihoods. These include artisanal fishing, salt production, agriculture, animal husbandry (including pastoralists) and horticulture. We believe that it is only with our collective efforts and through active implementation of our existing laws and policies we will be able to ensure sustainable development along the Kutch coast. It is for this we look forward to your immediate and continued cooperation.

As you are aware, the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 in its Clause 6 (c ) has the specific provision for setting up District Level Coastal Committees (DLCC) to assist the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) of the state in enforcement and monitoring of the CRZ notification. The order of 14^th October 2013 by the CZMA lists out the possible composition of the DLCC and a wide range of functions for the same.

As Chairman of this DLCC, we do hope you would take the lead in setting up a vibrant and active DLCC for livelihood protection and conservation of the Kutch coast. The Manch and its members will be extremely happy to work on and with the DLCC in all its activities and we would like to extend our full support to the district administration for the same.

We would request you to call for a meeting of the DLCC as soon as possible and expand the scope of local participation in the same. While the CRZ notification, 2011 mandates that a minimum of three representatives from the fishing community should be part of the DLCC, we hope given the vastness and diversity of the Kutch coast, there would be a possibility to expand the scope of participation. We hope that the Kutch DLCC will be able to find representation of different occupations of the coastal people residing in CRZ areas as well as many more fishing community representatives, especially

those practicing artisanal fisheries.

We also hope that through your initiative, the DLCC will also be able to a play a significant and path-breaking role ensuring a leadership role for the DLCC in the preparation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for Kutch. This will be crucial input into the state level CZMP being prepared by the Gujarat CZMA. We, the members of the Mundra Hit RakshakManch would be keen to participate actively in the preparation of the CZMP, which can become a vision document for the Kutch coast.

We would also like to share with you that we have recently been part of a day long training program and discussion on the CRZ notification, 2011 organised by UjjasMahilaSangathan in Mundra. Representatives from Namati-Centre for Policy Research Environment Justice Program who have put together simple and pictorial material on the CRZ notification were also part of this discussion. We take this opportunity to share copies of the Gujarati and English material with you, which we have found useful. We hope that as District Collector you can consider directing similar programs along the Kutch coast where we, and our network members knowledgeable about this law can actively participate.

We look forward to your response, cooperation and working together for the protection of local livelihoods and sustainable development of the Kutch coast.

Sincerely,

Harun Sale Kara                                                        Gajendrasinh Jadeja

Bhadreshwar  Village                                                 Navinal Village

Haji Ayub Osman Majalia                                         Haresh Shamji Mahraj

Bhadreshwar  Village                                                 Bhujpar Village

Ibrahim Manjaliya                                                     Sanjay Bapat

Bhadreshwar                                                              Mundra Village

Usmangani                                                                  Vimal Kalavadiya

Setu                                                                             Namati

                                               

Bharat Patel                                                               Abhu Kasu Manjaliya

MASS, Kutch                                                              Bhadreshwar Village

Encl:Legal Awareness material related to CRZ Notification, 2013

CC: 1. Hardik Shah, Member Secretary, Gujarat CZMA

        2. V. Rajagopalan, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests

        2. E. Thirunavukkarasu, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests

---

[1]Mundra Hit Rakshak Manch(Forum for Protection of Rights in Mundra) is an informal collective of villagers impacted by large scale land use change due to large scale industrial expansion in the Mundra region. These persons and organisations have been regularly raising concerns against the social and environmental impacts of these projects through memorandums and street action as well as through courts. The forum was organically formed in June 2012 during the discussions of the community-led ground truthing of violations by projects in Kutch.

Global NGOs unhappy over WB support to Tata's Mundra UMPP

Seek withdrawal of IFC funding from the Tata Power's 4,000 Mw power project in Gujarat

After Indian NGO, as many as 68 civil society groups from 28 countries have condemned the World Bank Group’s continued support for Tata Power's 4000 Mw ultra mega power plant (UMPP) in Mundra, Kutch, despite the Ombudsman for International Finance Corporation (IFC) finding serious lapses by IFC in supervision of the coal-base power project, impacting environment and livelihood of local fishing community there.

The global groups in an open letter to World Bank President Dr Jim Yong Kim, Friday last, have further demand that IFC be held accountable for the lapses by taking appropriate actions to address the findings of the Ombudsman, starting with development of a remedial action plan and the withdrawal of IFC financing from the Tata Power's power project in Mundra.

The action by civil rights groups from across the world comes on the heels of a letter from over 100 civil society groups in India demanding that the World Bank Group’s IFC withdraw funding from the Tata Power's project in Gujarat.

In its audit report for the power project, released last month, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) for the IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank Group, had also held that IFC's review of project's environment and social assessments was not commensurate with project risk as required under its Sustainability Policy.

IFC had refuted the charges levied by CAO and justified its actions and funding to the power project operational under banner of Coastal Gujarat Power Limited (CGPL), a fully owned company of Tata Power.

Commenting on open letter by global civil society groups spokesperson for Tata Group said, "CAO report reflects the observations on the internal processes of IFC & thus it will only be appropriate for IFC to respond. We are yet to read through the report & would discuss with IFC if there were any issues related to CGPL. As per initial information available with CGPL, MASS (the Association for Fish workers' Rights) has certain generic issues concerning the coastline of Gujarat. Mundra UMPP is just about 1% of Kutch coastline & we are more than responsive in our association with the community around our project & we remain committed to working with the community at all times."

"Mundra plant is fully compliant on all environmental and social norms and the same has been endorsed by MOEF and other statutory bodies and is committed to being a 'neighbour of choice'," the spokesperson further added.

In the open letter sent to Kim the global civil society groups have asked, "As concerned World Bank stakeholders and contributing taxpayers to our respective government’s official aid through the Bank, we are disturbed by your clearance of IFC response to the CAO report on the Tata Mundra coal power project. In solidarity with the Indian fishing communities, we demand an explanation why you rejected the CAO findings on IFC’s policy violations in funding the Tata Mundra coal power plant."

"Unless the findings from the World Bank Group’s internal watchdogs, like the CAO and the Inspection Panel, are taken seriously and acted upon, their role is in name only. This decision undermines the mandate of CAO while allowing staff and management to avoid culpability. Civil society around the world demand you hold the IFC accountable by taking hard but appropriate actionsto address the CAO findings, starting with the development of a remedial action plan and the withdrawal of IFC financing from the Tata Mundra coal project," the groups demanded.

In its audit of Tata UMPP, the CAO had found "weaknesses in IFC’s environment and social (E&S) review of CGPL did not support the formation of a robust view as to whether the project could be expected to meet the requirements of the Performance Standards over a reasonable period of time, the threshold question in terms of IFC’s decision to invest."

"Weaknesses in IFC’s E&S review process also meant that required opportunities to consider alternative project designs to avoid or minimize E&S impact were missed," the CAO stated in its findings.

IFC has invested $450 million of its own capital in this project, which it has classified as a category A project, signifying that it believes there are potentially significant adverse social and environmental impacts that may be diverse or irreversible. IFC was also considering investing up to $50 million in equity as part of its exposure to the project and syndicating up to about $300 million in loans

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/global-ngos-unhappy-over-wb-support-to-tata-s-mundra-umpp-113111100401_1.html

Top US, European groups oppose World Bank support to Tatas' power project at Mundra, call it "deadly"

Top US, European groups oppose World Bank support to Tatas' power project at Mundra, call it "deadly"

Fishing activity next to Tatas' power plant

By Our Representative

As many as 68 groups from 28 countries across six continents have sent a letter to World Bank President Dr Jim Yong Kim condemning the World Bank Group’s continued support for “a deadly coal project in Gujarat, India”. A statement from Washington by Dan Byrnes of the Sierra Club, which has chapters throughout the United States and Canada that offer opportunities for local involvement, activism and outings, says, “This action comes on the heels of a letter from over 100 groups in India demanding that the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation withdraw funding from the project, Tata Power’s 4,000-MW Mundra coal-fired ultra mega power plant (UMPP).

The “open letter” to Dr Kim from civil society groups opposing World Bank, while disagreeing with the rejection of Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) findings on the Tata Coal Plant, says, “As concerned World Bank stakeholders and contributing taxpayers to our respective government’s official aid through the Bank, we are disturbed by your clearance of International Finance Corporation (IFC) response to the CAO report on the Tata Mundra coal power project.” Significantly, most of the NGOs which signed the letter are from the US and European countries.

The letter says, “In solidarity with the Indian fishing communities, we demand an explanation why you rejected the CAO findings on IFC’s policy violations in funding the Tata Mundra coal power plant. What actions will you take to mitigate the adverse impacts and end your financing of the deadly coal project? Following a complaint from Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS, Association for the Struggle for Fishworkers’ Rights), an organization of fishing families impacted by the IFC financed 4,000 megawatt Tata Mundra UMPP in Kutch, Gujarat, the CAO issued a report showing that the IFC committed serious violations of its mandatory safeguards.”

The letter points out, “The CAO found that ‘IFC weaknesses in reviewing the client’s risk assessment and mitigation did not support the formation of a robust view that the project met the IFC’s policy requirements, that IFC did not consider alternative project design to avoid or minimize impacts, and that IFC has not treated complainants’ concerns as compliance issues.’ However, the IFC rejected the expert findings and issued no remedial action, choosing instead to defend the project decision and client.”

The letter further says, “Even more troubling, despite your work in public health and calls for urgent action to address climate change, your office cleared the response after a month of silence. Your decision means thousands of fishing and fishworker families will continue suffering from air pollution, contaminated water, and destroyed marine resources that CAO found to be directly linked with the construction and operation of the Tata coal plant.”

It adds, “This decision contradicts your decades of public health advocacy and speeches on moving the Bank away from funding fossil fuels. Mr President, you must show that you are serious about your statements at previous WB/IMF annual meetings on climate, accountability and learning from past mistakes. The CAO found massive shortfalls at the IFC, showing that the mechanisms to uncover such issues are working.”

The letter insists, “However, while the Tata Mundra project provided an opportunity to prove your commitment to learning from these failures, your clearance of the IFC response continues the lack of public accountability within the IFC. Unless the findings from the World Bank Group’s internal watchdogs, like the CAO and the Inspection Panel, are taken seriously and acted upon, their role is in name only. This decision undermines the mandate of CAO while allowing staff and management to avoid culpability. Civil society around the world demand you hold the IFC accountable by taking hard but appropriate actions to address the CAO findings, starting with the development of a remedial action plan and the withdrawal of IFC financing from the Tata Mundra coal project.

Among the organizations which have signed the letter include several important NGOs in US such as Sierra Club, Accountability Counsel, Bank Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Earth Day Network, Feminist Task Force, Friends of the Earth US, Inclusive Development International, Institute for Policy Studies, Climate Policy Program, Oil Change International, Pacific Environment and World Team Now. Prominent multinational NGOs which signed the letter are Greenpeace International , Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, Kyoto2, and NGO Forum on ADB, Asia-Pacific.

From Britain, the NGOs which signed the letter are Bretton Woods Project, Climate and Health Council, Forest Peoples Programme, Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLinks), the Corner House, and World Development Movement. Then, there were Jubilee and Market Forces from Australia, Carbon Market Watch and Centre national de coopération au développement from Belgium, Les Amis de la Terre from France; Urgewald from Germany, Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) from Japan, BankTrack from the Netherlands, Quercus – Associação Nacional de Conservação da Natureza from Portugal, Earthlife Africa Jhb from South Africa, Taiwan Environmental Protection Union from Taiwan and Re:Common from Italy.

NGOs from several other countries also signed the letter in large numbers. The countries represented include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tanzania, Kosovo, Ghana, Nepal, Colombia, Indonesia, Tanzania, Mongolia, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam, among others.

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2013/11/grassroots-activists-across-the-globe-condemn-world-bank-presidents-continued-support-of-tata-mundra.html

http://tcktcktck.org/2013/11/groups-tell-world-bank-dont-finance-tata-coal-india/58671

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/08/world-bank-chief-condemned-for-backing-4000mw-india-coal-plant/#sthash.cRmYYG0L.uxfs

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/ryVntvnGNF6JCgtVFkwWpM/Tata-Power-seeks-to-add-1600MW-at-Mundra-plant.html

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2150198/world_banks_support_of_tata_mundra_coal_plant_condemned.html

http://napm-india.org/content/over-hundred-organisations-demand-world-bank-withdrawal-tata-mundra

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/interview-it-s-a-shame-that-situation-now-is-not-conducive-to-investment-anil-sardana-1911969

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/ifc-erred-funding-tata-mundra-power-project-says-its-compliance-advisor-ombudsman#.Um5S7wwCeKE.twitter

MachimarAdhikarSangharshSangathan

Mundra, Kutch, Gujarat

Press Statement |October 24, 2013

World Bank President Dr. Kim shies away from taking action despite investigations find social & environmental violations at Tata Mundra

The recourse mechanism of International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) in its report released yesterday found serious social and environmental policy non-compliance by IFC and Coastal Gujarat Power Limited (CGPL), the promoters of Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project in Kutch, Gujarat. Despite the significant findings, the World Bank Group President, Dr. Jim Kim shied from taking any actions to check or minimise the negative impacts on the people and environment.

Stopping short of calling for IFC’s withdrawal from financing Tata Mundra project, the CAO said in its report, “…IFC’s Environment & Social review of CGPL did not support the formation of a robust view as to whether the project could be expected to meet the requirements of the Performance Standards over a reasonable period of time, the threshold question in terms of IFC’s decision to invest.”

MachimarAdhikarSangharshSangathan (MASS) welcomes the report and its findings.  MASS is the local organisation of fishworkers affected by power projects including Tata Mundra, Adani, OPG power projects, Mundra port and Special Economic Zone.

“The findings reiterate and reconfirmthe concerns raised by the communities since long,” Bharat Patel, General Secretary of MASS said. “The findings, based on scientific studies, are indeed a shot in the arm for the people struggling to protect the livelihoods of thousands of fisherfolk in Kutch coast.”

MASS had lodged the complaint with CAO in June 2011.

Key Findings

·         The Complainants, who are from a religious minority and occupy a socially marginal position given their migrant traditions, were not adequately considered as the (Environmental and Social) E&S risks and impacts of the project were considered and addressed.

·         There is no social baseline data in relation to the fisher people who reside seasonally in the fishing villages. In the absence of a baseline data IFC was not in a position to ensure the proper application of IFC’s policies related to land acquisition, despite indications that households living on the bundershave been displaced by the project (both physically and economically).

·         IFC failed to ensure that its client’s (Tata) E&S assessments adequately considered the risks and impacts of the project on these fisher people.

·         IFC paid inadequate attention to the requirementof biodiversity conservation.

·         Serious lapses in IFC’s review and supervision of the impacts of the project on the airshed and marine environment.

·         IFC has not ensured that its client correctly applied the World Bank’s Thermal Power: Guidelines (1998) in that the project airshed has notbeen defined as a degraded airshed—a classification that brings with it a requirement that there will be no net increase in the total emissions of particulates or sulphur dioxide within the airshed.

·         IFC’s process of E&S review was not appropriate to the nature and scale of the project or commensurate to risk as required by the Sustainability Policy (of IFC).

·         IFC has not assured itself that the plant’s seawater cooling system will comply with applicable IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.

·         IFC’s E&S review paid inadequate attention to ensuring that the project’s risks and impacts were “analyzed in the context of [its] area of influence,” as required by Performance Standard 1 (of IFC), including “areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts…from project-related developments that are realistically defined at the time the E&S assessment is undertaken.”

·         IFC should have advised its client that third-party E&S risk emerging from the project’s proximity and relationship with Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone needed to be better assessed, with mitigation measures developed.

 IFC’s response& conflict of interest

 IFC put its credibility at risk, by rebutting all the findings of CAO and going out of the way to defend its client, CGPL and its parent company, Tata. IFC’s response to the CAO findings smacks of arrogance, refusal to learn lessons and disregard to people and their rights.

 The fact that the company has commissioned Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) to undertake biodiversity mapping of the zone to be impacted by the thermal plume, that BNHS corroborated the findings of Marine Environment Impact Assessment (which was questioned by CAO) and engaged BNHS to carry out turtle monitoring program is used in IFC’s management response to discredit the CAO findings and to support the company. However, BNHS is a partner of Tata Power, the parent company of CGPL, according to their annual report 2009-2010. The current president of BNHSMr.HomiKhusrokhan is a former Managing Director of Tata companies. Despite having such an umbilical cord between the two, how can BNHS findings be independent and impartial is anybody’s guess. IFC hoodwinks the public on the conflict of interest.

 President Kim shies away from walking the talk

 Despite alarming findings by CAO, President Kim did not acknowledge even one of the findings and supported blindly the IFC management response, making himself and IFC complicit to the violations at Tata Mundra.

 By clearing IFC response, the message President Kim is sending is that he supports his staff’s denial of science, of expert findings and endorses management’s avoidance of accountability. People in and out of the institution will see this move a form of hypocrisy. He endorses management’s response that the coal plant does not cause public health concerns (when it’s been high in the President’s past and present advocacy). It then contradicts the President’s energy directions paper and pronouncements on moving the institution from coal financing. His tall talk on climate change is proving to be a charade.

 Undermining the mandate of CAO

 After considering the CAO findings and IFC management response for 5 weeks, by not recognising even one finding of CAO, Dr. Kim sends a strong and damaging signal that Bank’s internal watchdogs like CAO and Inspection Panel are more for namesake and that despite their findings its business as usual for the Bank.

 “We wonder why an institution like CAO exists if their findings are not given any value and no action is taken upon it,” said SoumyaDutta, coordinator of the Independent Fact Finding Team whose report Real Cost of Powerdocumented the violations of the company in June 2012. “If President Kim is serious about the accountability that he talks about, and about learning from the Bank’s mistakes to prevent them from occurring again, he should not hesitate to take bold decisions based on the findings.”

 Communities demand the World Bank President stop pretending that he can take people for a ride and take bold actions based on the CAO findings. “Now that World Bank’s own investigations found such serious lapses, it is time for the Bank to sit up and take appropriate and immediate actions. We will not agree on anything short of IFC withdrawing financing from the project,” Bharat Patel said.

CAO Audit Report:http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/TermsofReference_CGPLAudit_October242012.pdf

IFC Response to CAO Audit report:  http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/IFCresponsetoCAOAudit-CoastalGujaratPowerLimited.pdf

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ngos-demand-world-bank-withdrawal-from-tata-s-mundra-umpp-113110400736_1.html

Adani project in Mundra has violated environmental norms, rules MoEF committee

 incontrovertible evidence of destruction of mangroves, blocking of creeks and non-compliance of other clearance conditions

Committee recommends effective deterrence through creation of Environment Restoration Fund of Rs 200 crore or 1 per cent of total investment, whichever is higher

Recommends reform of Coastal Zone Regulations and monitoring systems

New Delhi, April 18, 2013:There is incontrovertible evidence that the Adani project – port and SEZ – at Mundra in Gujarat has violated and not complied with environmental clearance conditions. The company has also bypassed environmental procedures in certain cases – says the report of a committee set up by the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) to inspect the project. The committee’s report was officially presented to the Union minister of state for environment and forests, Jayanthi Natarajan, here today.

The Adani Waterfront and Power Plant project has been in the eye of the storm for its massive adverse ecological impacts. Based on complaints received, the MoEF had set up the Committee to examine allegations of environmental destruction and non-compliance, including distortion of the original HTL/LTL by the company. The five-member committee, headed by environmentalist Sunita Narain, included officials from the MoEF and experts on coastal ecosystems and disaster management. 

Ms Natarajan received the report and assured that the recommendations would be looked into by her officials.

The Committee used remote sensing technology to assess environmental damage that had occurred over the past decade. It concluded that there were cases of non-compliance, including the following:

• There has been widespread destruction of mangroves; 75 hectares of mangroves have been lost in Bocha Island, which was declared as a conservation zone under the environmental clearance conditions.
• The company has not taken precautions to guard against blocking of creeks because of construction activities; satellite imagery shows signs of deterioration and loss of creeks near the proposed North Port. 
• The company has not taken stipulated measures to ensure that the channels that bring large volumes of seawater for use in the thermal power plant and then discharge as well as the storage tank is lined so that there is no chance of salinity contamination in groundwater. This was a clear condition set at the time of clearance.
• The company was found to be wanting about the inventory of its fly ash utilisation and disposal.
• The company has been less than serious about reporting on compliance with the conditions set at the time of clearance. In many cases, non-compliance with reporting conditions has been observed.

Says Narain: “The Committee in its investigations has found that there have been instances to circumvent statutory procedures by using different agencies, at the Centre and state, for obtaining clearances for the same project. The public hearing procedure, which is a critical part of project clearance and helps to understand and mitigate the concerns of local people, has also been bypassed on one pretext or another.”

The fisher community, which depends on the coasts for their livelihood, is the worst hit by these changes. “The development on the coast, on their land has clearly left little space for them,” says Narain. The report of the Committee suggests that there should be a plan for their ensuring access and provision of basic facilities, including a dedicated fishing harbor.

Key recommendations

• The ministry should create an Environment Restoration Fund, which should be 1 per cent of the project cost (including the cost of the thermal power plant) or Rs 200 crore, whichever is higher. The Fund should be used for remediation of environmental damage in Mundra and for strengthening the regulatory and monitoring systems.
• Cancel environmental clearance of the North Port – this will lead to an increase in the mangrove conservation area and ensure ecological balance in this coastal zone.

In addition, the committee has also made a range of recommendations on mangrove conservation, flyash management and disposal, salinity control, coastal safety (read earthquakes and tsunamis), and project clearance conditions and post-clearance monitoring. In fact, the committee’s report notes that post-clearance monitoring is the weakest area, and needs urgent strengthening. Says Narain: “If monitoring was rigorous, public and credible, there would have been no need for this committee. Which is why we have recommended that there is a need to create a monitoring system to ensure that corrective action suggested by this report is taken within a time-bound manner.”

http://www.cseindia.org/content/adani-project-mundra-has-violated-environmental-norms-rules-moef-committee

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-19/india/38673013_1_mundra-project-adani-group-new-delhi

http://cseindia.org/userfiles/adani_final_report.pdf

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/rs-200cr-fine-on-adani-group-recommended/article1-1046522.aspx

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/gujarat-based-adani-group-fined-200-crore-for-environmental-damage-413610

http://www.sustainuance.com/adani-group-faces-fine-for-environmental-damage/

http://inagist.com/all/375104630499196928/

http://www.trinet.in/?q=node/1178

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/adani-project-violated-norms-impose-rs-200cr-fine-panel_855348.html

http://www.firstpost.com/business/adanis-mundra-project-violated-green-norms-says-probe-panel-710950.html

http://currentaffairs.gktoday.in/2013/09/moe-slaps-rs-200-crore-penalty-adani-group-8584/

http://www.businessworld.in/news/business/environment/adani-project-violated-norms-panel/864337/page-1.html

http://www.abhiyaanmagazine.com/index.php/sambhaavmetro/85-slide/23246-adani-story-01

Adani SEZ project violated green norms, says environment panel

BT Online Bureau New Delhi Last Updated: April 19, 2013 | 10:49 IST

An environment ministry panel has held that a port and special economic zone (SEZ) project of Adani group in Mundra, Gujarat, violated green clearance conditions and recommended creation of a fund of a minimum of Rs 200 crore from the project cost for ecological restoration.http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/adani-sez-project-violated-green-norms-environment-panel/1/194236.html

Due to non-compliance of environmental clearance rules by the company, there has been widespread destruction of mangroves and deterioration and loss of creeks near the proposed North Port, said the report, which was presented to Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan on Thursday."There is incontrovertible evidence that Adani project has violated environmental norms," said the five-member committee headed by environmentalist Sunita Narain in its report."Seventy-five hectares of mangroves have been lost in Bocha Island, which was declared as a conservation zone. The company has not taken precautions to guard against blocking of creeks because of construction activities; satellite imagery shows signs of deterioration and loss of creeks near the proposed North Port," it said.The Adani waterfront and power plant project has been in the eye of the storm for its alleged adverse ecological impact. Based on the complaints received, the environment ministry had set up the committee to examine the allegations.Based on the findings, the committee has asked the government to create an environment restoration fund, which should be 1 per cent of the project cost (including the cost of the thermal power plant) or Rs 200 crore, whichever is higher."The fund should be used for remediation of environmental damage in Mundra and for strengthening the regulatory and monitoring systems," it said.The panel did not put the project on hold as it observed that it has moved very far but advised the ministry to cancel environmental clearance of the North Port. Natarajan assured the committee that the ecommendations would be looked into by the government.Reacting to the development, the Gujarat-based firm said since the north port has not been developed at all, it would not impact the current operations of the company.

Inspection committee to visit Kutch this month end

Saeed Khan, TNN Oct 19, 2012, 07.00PM IST

AHMEDABAD: The inspection of Adani Power Ltd (APL) and Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ) by a special committee of Ministry of Environment and Forest is likely to begin in Kutch from October 29.

A five-member team headed by Sunita Narain was formed by the ministry last month after allegations of violation of environmental and coastal regulatory zone (CRZ) norms were leveled against these two companies by a local fishermen's association - Machhimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS) and another NGO named Kheti Vikas Sewa Trust (KVST).

According to Bharat Patel from MASS, the team is scheduled to visit Kutch by the end of this month for inspection.

While forming the committee the ministry had also taken into consideration directions issued for the APSEZ by the Gujarat high court order on a PIL filed by KVST. The committee's task includes examination of allegations regarding distortion of original high tide line through bunding/diversion/blocking of creek and reclamation, and whether construction of Mundra Port, roads, railway was taken up prior to grant of environmental clearance.

The committee has a mandate to check whether companies have complied with conditions laid down while granting environment clearance. It is also likely to assess an impact on agriculture following salinity ingress.

The ministry had granted environment and CRZ clearance on January 12, 2009 to APSEZ for the development of port facilities at Mundra, however, similar clearance for the SEZ was still awaited.