MASS’
Response to ADB’s Action Plan On Tata Mundra
The much awaited Action Plan of Asian Development Bank (ADB)
on Tata Mundra is finally out! The Action Plan was looked forward to by a large
number of people, negatively affected by the Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project
(Tata Mundra), since it was preceded by a Report by the Compliance Review Panel
(CRP), ADB’s accountability mechanism.
In its Report,
published in April 2015, CRP
found several areas of noncompliance with ADB operational policies and
procedures. Some of them were:
·
failure to conduct adequate and
comprehensive consultations with fisherfolk during initial project design phase
and consider their views in assessing project impacts. ·
noncompliance with ADB
operational policies and procedures for thermal and chemical pollution of
wastewater discharged through its outfall channel leading to harm people
fishing on foot. ·
noncompliance with air pollution
standards, and unless continued violations of prescribed air standards were not
checked or brought into compliance, further harm would result.
·
noncompliance with ADB
operational procedures and resulting harm by not surveying and compensating
people impacted by longer access routes to their traditional fishing grounds as
plant premises now stood enclosed.
What the people were expecting was an Action Plan based on
these findings. Instead, what was presented to them was a “Studies Plan”, as
the CRP calls it, plagued with too little “Action” and cherry-picking the
findings.
As suggested by the management, MASS had prepared a detailed
‘People’s Action Plan’ based on each findings of CRP (see appended). Nearly
none of them are addressed in the Action Plan.
Machimar
Adhikaar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS - Association for the Struggle for Fishworkers’
Rights) finds the current Action Plan problematic for the following reasons:
Erroneous Process
In May 2015, when MASS and other organisations met with the
management (Todd C. Freeland DG PSOD, Michael Barrow DDG PSOD, Don Purka,
Director) we were told that a team from ADB have already made a field visit in
preparation to developing an Action Plan. It shocked us since there was no
information about this visit, or the said team met anybody who filed the
complaint to CRP, or the communities which the complainants represented in
their complaint. If the Action Plan is prepared in consultation only with the
company and not with the people, whose complaint led to the CRP report, that clearly
shows that ADB is not interested in any course correction. It proves that ABD not
holding adequate consultation with people initially was intentional. And it
continue with the intent.
Plans that are hardly
plans!
Consultation
If the intention of holding consultation with all
stakeholders is genuine, especially after the project is completed and is made
a fait accompli on the people, it
should be to assess the spread and depth of damages caused and plan a robust
mitigation plan. Without a real assessment how can one develop a budget? Or, whether
putting up a budget is to put a limit to the extent of planning ADB could do?
We fear that this consultation process will be yet another hogwash and that is
clear right from the beginning of Action Plan preparation.
Studies by NIO
The
Marine Environmental Impact Assessment (MEIA) and the Rapid Environmental
Impact Assessment (RMEIA) for the project was carried out by National Institute
of Oceanography (NIO) in 2007 and 2009. A few of their conclusions led to
catastrophic results. Consider this:
“Evidently, no large scale of
commercial fishing operations prevail off Tunda-Vandh and surrounding region
except for minor based hand-net and gill-net operations.” (MEIA, Pg 52)
“Since there are no commercial
fishing operations off Tunda-Vandh except shore based local fishing, the impact
on fisheries would be minor and non-consequential” (MEIA, Pg 87)
It would be worthwhile to consider CRP’s observations on
NIO’s reports:
“The presence of fisherfolk who
practice traditional fishing has also been noted in the RMEIA. The report
states that there are no commercial fishing operations in Kotdi Creek except
shore based local fishing. The RMEIA further refers to some limited fishing in
traditional boats. Internal ADB commenters in the preparation phase of the SEIA
also pointed to the likelihood that the outfall channel might impact on people
fishing in the area.
It is thus puzzling that the SEIA
states: “Despite the fishing potential of the gulf, there are no local
fishing activities in the coastal waters fronting the project area. This
could be because most villagers are vegetarians and the presence of a vast
intertidal mudflat. The nearest small fishing community is located outside the
project areas at about 2.8 km from Modwa creek, where the spent cooling water
will be discharged.” (emphasis added) The same statement can be found in the
Resettlement Planning Document (para. 18): “Although the fishing potential of
the Gulf of Kutch is significant, there are no local fishing activities in
the coastal waters directly fronting the project area which has vast intertidal
mudflats, The nearest small fishing community is at Kotdi Creek bank
located outside the project area …”(emphasis added). The CRP does not agree
with the statement that no fishing takes place in the coastal waters fronting
the project area. ADB staff explained to the CRP that this statement was made,
as the RMEIA states that there is no large scale commercial fishing in the
shallow waters in front of the plant. But ADB policies and procedures are not
only directed towards large scale operators. It is the poor and vulnerable who
in particular need to be consulted and for whom negative project impacts can
seriously affect their livelihood and fisherfolk who fish in front of the Tata
Mundra plant are mostly poor.” (CRP Report Pg 18-19)
“The CRP is of the view that the
RMEIA and MEIA reports present a somewhat incomplete picture.” (About thermal pollution from water discharged from the outfall channel) (CRP Report Pg 25)
To depend on NIO’s findings again to develop a mitigation
plan would be a non-starter. NIO was again engaged by the company in 2013 after
the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) of International Finance Corporation
(IFC), a co-financier of the project, came heavily down upon the IFC for its
blatant violation of its own policies. IFC adopted whatever the company said
they are doing as their own Action Plan. ADB, in an effort to dodge
responsibility and fool people, is just piggybacking on something which lacks
credibility, acceptance and whose initial reports have misled ADB is wrongly
assessing the impacts.
Temperature Monitoring
We welcome the automatic temperature monitoring device at
the outflow channel to be made accessible to the public. However, CRP found
non-compliance of ADB policies vis-à-vis thermal discharge. How does the
monitoring alone address this non-compliance? If ADB is genuine to address this
non-compliance, it has to ask the company to change the open cooling system of
outfall channel to a closed cooling system.
Livelihood Improvement
Plan
Why is Livelihood Improvement Plan restricted only for
people who had practiced foot fishing? CRP in its report has been eloquent on
the loss of livelihood for the fisherfolk. Why discriminate the affected
population? Or, does ADB consider that the thermal pollution the outfall
channel is causing can be contained in a limited area?
Any livelihood improvement plan should consider all affected
communities; wide consultations with them should be fundamental to developing a
plan and plans should be made public. CRP identified affected communities can
only be a beginning and not the end. CRP talks about impacts of coal dust, fly
ash and air pollution. There is no data available on the spread of its impacts.
What one is witnessing here is that instead of ADB trying to
make an effort to assess the actual impacts and develop an Action Plan, it is
trying to narrow down its ambit and discriminate among the affected
communities.
Missing the woods for
the trees
May be in this case it should be said ‘missing the sea for
the water’!
By not taking appropriate actions on the CRP report, apart
from undermining the accountability mechanism of ADB, it is also sending a
stern message to all communities who will ever consider of seeking redressal
from CRP that ADB do not care about their miseries, or CRP’s findings, it will
defend its client, and at best, they will hogwash the communities and public with
some studies and ornamental actions, and continue with its business.
We are disappointed with the Board which approved this
Action Plan, which is non-serious, lacks genuineness, commitment or imagination,
and is a joke on the affected communities.
ADB has missed another opportunity to look at the real
impacts and develop a remedial action plan. Instead of realising its vision of
an Asia free from poverty, with its attitude towards the affected communities
in Tata Mundra ADB is making the self-sufficient communities poor.
Budget
The lack of commitment is reflected also in the budget
allocation. 57% of the budget is going for studies (for discredited agencies
like NIO and other consultants). With allocating only $300,000 for livelihood
improvement plan, without even knowing the actual number of people who needs
alternative livelihood and without even knowing what the plans are, the
management is making its insensitive attitude amply clear.
Key missed
opportunities
Who implements the plans and monitors the progress of all
these proposed actions? The same company and the same M&E consultants,
whose failure hitherto has led to such a situation? There is no attempt from
the management to learn from the past mistakes. Unless the affected communities
are part of the implementing and monitoring process, however good the plans
look on paper (in this case, it looks a non-starter even on paper!), it will
never be implemented on the ground and the ones who has suffered so far will
continue to do so.
A genuine consultation process with all stakeholders is
lacking in the Action Plan. CRP has listed policy violations on consulting
affected communities at various stages of impact assessment studies. Why is the
management still not trying to consult people, to understand the spread and
depth of impacts?
Having repeatedly established by agencies like CAO and CRP
that the Social and Environmental Impact Assessment is erroneous, why is there
no attempt to do a fresh SEIA? Without which how can anyone ever draw a
remedial plan?
Why nothing is proposed on health facilities, despite CRP
reporting about air pollution, dust and ash contamination? What about the dust
and ash deposited on grazing land, which is consumed by the livestock? ADB do
not want to address the genuine impacts and is only interested in some
publicity stunt?
Who in ADB is accountable for this situation? Shouldn’t the
accountability for the mess that is left in Tata Mundra stop at somebody’s
doorstep? Or does ADB want to continue to incentivise through perks and
promotions the ones who took wrong decisions, ignored the required studies,
failed in upholding ADB’s policies, put people’s livelihood and health at stake
and caused irreversible damage to environment?
Role of CRP
We want to acknowledge here the positive role played by CRP.
We appreciate CRP being proactive in ensuring that the management is complied
with the policies and the impacts on the communities are minimal.
Conclusion
Our worst fears have come true!
Our livelihood is stolen. From a position of self-sufficient
communities we are made to seek charity from the company and ADB now. Our
dignity is ripped off. Whatever is prepared in the name of an Action Plan is
insult to injury. We do not have any option but to reject this Action Plan.
Unless we see an action plan which addresses the fundamental findings of CRP,
where we are a part of the planning, implementation and monitoring, we will
continue our struggle for justice.
We urge ADB to engage in a process, in consultation with the
affected people, to develop an action plan based on the findings of CRP and
with a genuine intend to mitigate the impacts resulted from their investment in
Tata Mundra project.
Machimar Adhikaar Sangharsh Sangathan
July 2015
