Questions raised on final clearance to dam.
Vedanta Alumina bauxite mining proposal in Orissa has been dismissed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in a bold decision that for the first time bases itself on the fact that Forest Rights Act (FRA) violation is tantamount to violation of Forest Conservation Act. And that the consent of the forest dwellers and their gram sabhas is superior to the consent of the ministry itself. But just a month ago, the same logic did not apply for the Polavaram project in Congress-ruled Andhra pradesh from which Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh was nominated as Rajya Sabha MP.
The project is several times bigger than Vedanta, and is to submerge 300 villages and 3,700 hectares of forests. However, the consent of gram sabhas for ascertaining their forest rights has not been taken.
This has been stated not only by the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) but also recently by the Environment Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the MoEF.
Himanshu Thakkar of South Asia Network of Dams Rivers and People says that the final forest clearance that came last month was totally against the recommendation of the EAC which said that the project's land requirement has changed with the inclusion of a 15 km embankment and hence a fresh application for clearance was needed.
Thakkar who had appealed before the EAC said that an additional 700 hectares are likely to be needed in Orissa alone and this means approaching the gram sabhas in these areas. How can the project start when half the project has not got clearance or when the project has been redesigned? he asks.
More From This Section
The project has been reworked to include a 15 km embankment or wall along the border of Andhra Pradesh to prevent flooding in the neighbouring states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh.
Even for the Polavaram dam along the river Godavari in the districts of East and West Godavari gram sabhas have been consulted partially in the state and left out totally in Chattigarh and Orissa where many villages are likely to be submerged. This was stated in an order of the National Environmental Appellate Authority in 2007 quashing the in principle clearance granted by the MoEF for the project earlier. It said that "the impugned Environment Clearance order dated October 25, 2005 issued by MoEF ...was passed without taking into consideration the public hearing which by itself was incomplete as it was not conducted in the affected areas of Orissa and Chhattisgarh."
This is precisely the reason why Vedanta was not allowed as per recommendations of the Saxena committee.
R Sreedhar convenor of Mines Minerals and People whose petition led to the NEAA order has approached the Supreme Court challenging the environment and forest clearance for Polavaram. "The Vedanta verdict of the ministry now makes our case stronger," he said.
"It is clear that the state has to reapply now for forest clearance since the entire design of the project has been changed to accommodate the embankment. The ministry has no alternative but to revoke the approval," the organisation says.
| POLAVARAM | |
| Forest land for dam | 3,700 hectares |
| Villages | 330 |
| Gram sabha hearings | Incomplete |
| Forest land for wall along AP border | Unknown |
| Gram sabha consent | Not taken |
| Final approval | July 2010 |
The logic behind the rejection of the Vedanta project holds good for not only Polavaram but many other projects where not only have gram sabhas had no say in giving consent, but their access to forest resources has been threatened or even taken away.
The NC Saxena Committee explains in its report recommending rejection of the Vedanta proposal that forests mean more than trees and wildlife and includes forest dwellers. Hence the right of the forest dwellers to their resources in the forests is guaranteed in the Forest Rights Act. Hence implementation of Forest Conservation Act by the MoEF necessitates that FRA is also implemented.
Hence it is the gram sabhas and palli sabhas of the tribal villages which have to decide whether a project can take place in their area. If this criterion alone is taken, many projects listed above would be candidates for rejection.
In Orissa, the gram sabhas of the villages which are being affected by the Posco project had rejected the project but betal vines grown by the villagers have been destroyed and land was being acquired despite popular protests. A three member committee led by NC Saxena himself wrote to the ministry a month ago that the proect would lead to gross violation of the Forest Rights Act. However, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said recently that no forest issues were involved in the Posco deal while not guaranteeing any approval for it.
The betal cultivation by the Other Tribal Forest Dwellers in the area has been labelled as agriculture and the people themselves as non tribals by the state.
Saxena wrote to Jairam Ramesh forwarding the report of the committee on Posco recently that the Other Forest Dwellers were also covered by the FRA and their consent was necessary. He also pointed at evidence that the betal cultivation was in forest land despite a prevailing dispute over this between the forest and revenue department in the state.
The sarpanch of Dhinkia village which is being displaced wrote recently to the minister listing out the gram sabha hearings and their refusal to give any land for the project. He says that the approvals are being given despite these verdicts of the gram sabhas.
The ministry has meanwhile set up a second committee in a month to verify the claims that FRA violations are involved. The committee is led by former Environment Secretary Meena Gupta under whom the 'in principle' clearance was given for the project raising doubts about the usefulness of this committee.