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

Expert committee tells OPG "Provide Answers to people's issues first, then come to us"

In its letter dated 11th March, 2010 the Gujarat State Level Expert Appraisal Committee has informed OPG that the proposed 300 MW power project at Bhadreshwar will be considered for Environmental Clearance only after the company responds in detail to the issues raised by the local communities and also gets CRZ clearance from the competent authority.

The chronology of events related to the OPG power project is shown below:
29th May,2009 Public hearing for the 300 MW OPG power project witnessed unprecedented opposition from local communities Read More

23rd Aug,2009 Violent incidents in Bhadreshwar as OPG attempts to start construction without environmental clearance. 30 Fisherfolk leaders arrested and jailed for over 3 months. No action taken against the company. Read More

27th Aug,2009 Fisherfolk move Gujarat High Court against OPG project, raising issues of illegal construction and wrong information provided by company during public hearing.Read More

03rd Dec,2009 OPG approaches MoEF for expansion of the 300 MW power plant to 2600 MW.

03rd Feb,2010 Gujarat High Court orders site visit by GPCB officials and rules that company can’t start construction until project gets Environmental Clearance.

24th Feb,2010 Team of GPCB and Expert Committee visits Bhadreshwar and interacts with local communities and company officials. GPCB asks Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan, a local fishworkers tradeunion to prepare a comprehensive representation of all issues raised by the local communities in opposition to the OPG project.

4th March,2010 MASS hands over the representation, on behalf of 23,000 Fishworkers, Salt Panners, Farmers, Livestock rearers, Jain pilgrims and other villagers, to Expert Committee in presence of OPG officials.

11th Mar,2010 Expert Committee writes to OPG seeking their response to the issues raised by the local communities and states that project will be considered for Environmental Clearance only after satisfactory response to the issues raised and also the company has to obtain prior CRZ clearance from the central authorities.

12th Mar,2010 OPG starts construction again in project site.

13th Mar,2010 Fisherfolk complain about OPG’s illegal construction activity to district authorities.

17th Mar,2010 Legal notices served to district officials to conduct site inspection of the illegal construction activity.

As on date No action taken by District administration and OPG continues illegal construction activity without Environmental Clearance.

As mentioned in the representation made by MASS to GPCB, the project is likely to adversely impact fishworkers, salt panners, farmers, livestock rearers, Jain pilgrims visiting the Bhadreshwar panch teerth and other villagers of Bhadreshwar and the surrounding villages. On July 10rd, 2009, the Bhadreshwar Gram Sabha passed a resolution against the OPG power project. Villagers are worried because OPG is committing so many violations at the entry stages itself, and if allowed to establish, cannot be relied upon to sincerely implement pollution control measures that are being discussed on paper, thereby putting people's health and livelihoods at risk.

The apathy of the District Administration in ignoring the local community's complaints and allowing OPG to continue with illegal construction means that the villagers only ray of hope lies with the Expert Committee and the courts. The Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan, Kutch Zilla Machimar Association, The Bhadreshwar Salt Pan Association, Paryavaran Mitra and Kalyanji Vardhaman Trust (Trustees of the Jain pilgrimage shrine) welcome the positive steps taken by the Expert Committee and GPCB to understand the issues of the local communities. However, it remains to be seen whether the expert committee will take a step further in the interests of the local communities and deliver justice by rejecting the Environmental Clearance for the OPG power project.


If you would like to support the local communities in their pursuit of pro-poor, clean and sustainable development, please sign the following petition to insist upon the environmental regulatory authorities to reject environmental clearance for the project and the district administration to wake up and take some action against the company.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/30272.html

Kutch Coast - People, Environment and Livelihoods

In case of any difficulty in accessing the reports, please mail us at mass.kutch@gmail.com

Click here to sign a petition to demand action from the Government to protect the environment and livelihoods of people along Kutch Coast

Kutch Coast Study - Fishmarc and Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan

Public hearing for OPG Power Project in Bhadreshwar village, 29th May, 2009.

The public hearing for EIA clearance for OPG’s power plant in Bhadreshwar was held on 29^th May 2009. The venue was Chokhanda Mandir, Bhadreshwar village, Mundra Taluk. The Gujarat Pollution control Board Regional Officer, J.D.Kalyani and Kutch Additional Collector Shri.Vaghela chaired the meeting. OPG project director Mr.Padmanabhan and company officials were present. Also, officals from Detox corporation, the Surat based agency that carried out the EIA were present.

A huge number of people numbering over 2000 persons from affected villages participated in a 2 km rally which ended in the venue of the public hearing. This included traditional fisherfolk, Salt pan workers, Pastoralists, farmers and other villagers from Bhadreshwar, Sangad, Wandi, Luni, Hatdi, Pavdiara and other villages, likely to be affected by the project. The venue was filled to capacity and there were more people waiting outside trying to participate in the public hearing.

Shri.J.D.Kalyani gave an outline of the environmental clearance process. The project details were presented by an official of Detox corporation. After his presentation, several locals held the mike and explained their view on the project, listing out various issues in the proposed power plant.

The issues are listed below:

1. MASS Leaders raised the issue of the fisherfolk. Randh Bhadreshwar Bander, which is situated 5 km from Bhadreshwar village and home to over 5000 fisherfolk has not been mentioned anywhere in the OPGs’ report, which is supposed to provide details of habitations in a 10 km radius. In fact, as per the latittude- logitude of the power plant provided in the EIA report, the power plant is coming up exactly on Randh Bander. Since 2004, the fisherfolk have been submitting memoranda to the district administration to recognize the Bander land as a Fish landing centre. A Gujarat Government report of 2004 recommends that the Randh Bander be developed into a modern fish landing centre. In this situation, the OPGs are planning to install a power plant and a desalination plant which will discharge pollutants in the air, highly saline water and warm water into the sea, which will affect the marine ecology. Fishing is the sole occupation of the traditional fisherfolk and deprived of it they will perish. To pacify the fisherfolk, the company officials promised to provide water to the fisherfolk from the desalination plant. But, the fisherfolk were unanimous in opposing the OPG power project and exclaimed, “We will bear lathi and bullets, but we will not let the OPGs near our land ”.

2. Villagers of Bhadreshwar dismissed the claim that the OPG power project is 5 km away from the nearest habitation. Within 5 km of the power project are the 5000 fisherfolk in Randh Bander, Bhadreshwar village with a population of over 6000 and over 5000 salt pan workers. Also, as per revenue records, the land on which the power plant is proposed, has not yet been procured by the OPGs. Local villagers asked, “When the land is not yours, how can you seek permission to build something on it?”. The company officials had no reply to these questions.

3. There are nearly 5000 acres of salt pans in the area around the proposed power plant. The salt pans produce over 5000 tonnes of salt every month valued at over 15 crores. Already, the salt pans are facing difficulties due to pollutants that emerge from industries, 10 kms away, that burn around 400 tonnes of coal per month. Now with a power plant hardly 2 kms away, that burns around 90,000 tonnes of coal per month, the salt pans will be seriously affected and the salt produced will be unsuitable for consumption and the salt pans will be forced to close down. Bikha Bhai, speaking on behalf of the salt pan association stated, “We have been pursuing our traditional livelihoods for decades. Now this project is threatening to snatch our livelihoods from us. We are against this project and our fight will not stop with this public hearing. If the project is cleared at the state level, we will go to the central government. If it cleared there, we will go to the courts. If it is still cleared, 10,000 of us, including salt workers and fisherfolk in this area will lay down our lives before this project is implemented”.

4. Traditional pastoralists also opposed the project on the grounds that the project will adversely affect them and their livelihoods.

5. The Sarpanch of Bhadreshwar viillage, Shri.Umar bhai took a strong stand against the project, on behalf of all the communities in Bhadreshwar Village. He said that companies like OPG state that they will take precautions, but in our experience, nothing is done in reality to protect the local environment. He quoted the example of the Adanis who had given several promises but nothing was implemented. He stated that this is not a question of Hindu-Muslims, the entire village is with the fisherfolk and united in opposing the OPG project.
6. As a sign of their Gandhian protest against the OPG power project, none, not even one of the 2000 people touched the food, not even water that was kept next to the venue, in a OPG food stall which looked deserted.
7. Soni Ben from lok Adhikar Manch said that widows in the area had been long demanding for 5 acres of land each, from the collector. But the collector refuses to even meet them But, when industries ask for land, the collector eagerly agrees to their demands. She said that the project will be of no use to the village and hence she is against the project.
8. Smt. Usha Ben Thakkar, ex-MP, Kutch, who had served on the Fisheries board condemned the plan to build the power plant in Bhadreshwar, stating that fisheries will be badly affected. Other leaders like Shri.Haresh Thakker, Dalit leader Shri.Valji Bhai opposed the plan to construct the power plant in Bhadreshwar and suggested that the p[ower plant be constructed in Little Rann of Kutch or other barren lands which were available in plenty in Kutch.
9. Panchayats of eleven affected villages submitted letters opposing the OPG project.

Even though the hearing was held on a Friday, a holy day for muslims, hundreds of muslim fisherfolk turned up at the hearing to raise a voice to protect their livelihoods. At the end of the meeting, the people from Bhadreshwar and neighbouring villages shouted, “We will give our lives, but not our land” in a clear and unanimous message to all the authorities, the OPG company and the Government that the people are not in favour of the project and they will strongly oppose any move to implement the project.

Ecological Significance of the Mundra Area

Gulf of Kutch is one of the few coastal zones in the world having rich bio-diversity. It comprises of mangroves, Coral reefs, Mudflats, Seaweeds, Commercial Fishes and several rare marine species. Click on image to see Full Size Image. The mangroves of the gulf are the second largest after the Sunderbans in the mainland of India. Gulf of Kutch is the only place left along the Indian coast after Gulf of Mannar where live corals occur. In 1982, parts of the Gulf area were declared as a Sanctuary and Marine National Park. Recently, scientists have discovered patches of live corals near Mundra coast. Thus, the Mundra coast is an ecologically sensitive zone as it supports vast areas of Mangroves, Corals and associated ecosystems.

Destruction of any of the above components of the fragile ecology will disrupt the entire ecosystem. The mangroves help the ecosystem by contributing to the oxygen Budget and in Soil Conservation. Mangroves and Corals are the nursing grounds for a variety of economically important fishes, exotic coral fishes and innumerable flora and fauna. The gulf also abounds in more than 210 species of algae. These algae in combination with corals and mangroves provide a conducive ecosystem for diverse flora and fauna.

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. As per estimation, just 100 cu m of mangrove area shelters 54,600 prawns. Kutch district has been declared the most important mangrove area in the state of Gujarat.

A prominent feature of the Mundra Coast is the vast intertidal zone comprising a network of creeks, estuaries and mudflats. The intertidal zone is unique and very important because the fishermen can land their boats in these natural creeks and also keep them there safe from strong winds and currents. The fisherfolk have complete knowledge of the sea and have been living on the coasts for ages. They are familiar with the creeks of the area and the intertidal zone is important for their occupation, economic prosperity and survival of their families. The creeks also form a natural drainage system which if disturbed might lead to flooding during monsoons.

Scientists have identified vacant sites along the Kutch coast which could be used for industrial development. Along the northern coast, two lengthy stretches are available without any ecologically sensitive zones that could be used for future development of industries. Why use the ecologically sensitive Mundra Coast for Industrial Development when alternative sites are available nearby.