Environment Support Group ®

S-3, Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens,

Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 041. INDIA

Telefax: 91-80-6341977 Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP)

Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in Website: http://www.altindia.net/esg/index.htm

(Regd. Post with Acknowledgement Due)

Dr. S. K. Aggarwal

Addl. Director

Ministry of Environment and Forests

&

Member Secretary (MoEF Expert Committee on Infrastructure)

Government of India

Paryavaran Bhavan

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi 110 003

27 August, 2001

Sub.: In response to Environmental Clearance No. J-21012/39/2000-IA-III granted by MoEF to Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) Project promoted by M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE)

Dear Dr. Aggarwal,

The Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project is amongst the most controversial and questionable developments in recent times. ESG and several other groups have raised a variety of issues regarding this project, the process of its review and also the manner in which the Government of Karnataka and its agencies have suppressed information access to project information whilst also indulging in blatant abuse of human rights. You are aware that a case is pending review by the National Human Rights Commission with regard to the human rights violations during the process of the “Environmental Public Hearings” claimed to be “held” on the project during June/July 2000.

You will also recall our comprehensive representation dated 22 May 2001 providing details on the above and various other substantive issues relating to the project and the process of its clearance (online at http://www.indiatogether.org/campaigns/bmic). The Ministry of Environment and Forests official website confirmed on 15 June 2001 that this representation was being examined, thus:

“The information received on 24.5.2001 as also the large numbers of representations received against this project are being examined.”

The clearance accorded on 8^th August to the BMIC project does not in any way refer to the issues raised in the representation. It also completely skirts the moot question on whether MoEF has the power to clear a project when a Statutory authority such as the NHRC is reviewing the validity of the Environmental Public Hearings claimed to be held as part of the review process. Kindly refer to our letters in this regard, particularly those dated 05 Feb 2001, 05 March 2001 and 26 April 2001.

Further the clearance completely ignores the wider social and environmental implications of the project, reviewing only a small component of the project obscurely defined as “road/expressway”. This despite the first condition of the NOC accorded by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board acknowledging the role of MOEF to conduct a comprehensive review of the project.

The clearance also confirms that the decision has been taken without any information whatsoever being available on the nature of human displacement due to the project (whatever the context within which “project” has been understood by the MoEF).

Finally, the clearance appears vague and ambiguous by repeatedly using terms such as “appropriate” and “adequate” all too frequently, especially when the criteria that such terms refer to have well developed standards of application, both Indian and International.

We have reasons to believe that the clearance may have been accorded without due consultation or perhaps without accepting the advice of the Expert Committee on Infrastructure appointed by the Ministry. When we raised this issue with you in our telephonic conversation on 13 August 2001, you clarified that the Ministry need not accept the opinion of the Expert Committee, as the same is only “advisory” in nature. This begs the question on the need to have such Committees at a very high cost to the public exchequer, when the Committee’s opinion can be so easily ignored or overwritten by an Executive decision. We are marking a copy of this letter to the Expert Committee with a view to inform them of this position taken by you and seek their response to the same.

As is evident from the above, the clearance is questionable on various issues related to fact, process and law. We have prepared a preliminary list of issues detailing our concerns over the clearance. Please find the same laid out in the annexure attached.

Your response to these issues will be deeply appreciated in the wider public interest at the very earliest convenience.

Thanking you,

Yours truly,

Leo F. Saldanha

Coordinator

Environment Support Group

1. Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission (Law Division), New Delhi

2. Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka

3. Union Minister for Environment and Forests

4. Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment

5. Minister for Public Works, Government of Karnataka

6. Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha

7. Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha

8. Leader of Opposition, Karnataka State Council

9. Leader of Opposition, Karnataka State Assembly

10. Deputy Chairman, Karnataka State Planning Board

11. Experts of the MoEF Clearance Committee on Infrastructure

12. Spl. Secretary (IA), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India

13. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Chair of the Empowered Committee on BMIC

14. Chief Conservator of Forests (Southern Cell), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India

15. Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka

16. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Industries, Government of Karnataka

17. Principal Secretary, Dept of Infrastructure and Urban Development, Government of Karnataka

18. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Ecology, Environment and Forests, Government of Karnataka

19. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka State Forest Department

20. Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

21. Chairman, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

22. Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Karnataka

23. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

24. Secretary Department of Company Affairs, Govt. of India

25. Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India

26. Chairman, Foreign Investment Promotion Board, New Delhi

27. Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. of India

28. Special Land Acquisition Officer, BMIC Project, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

List of Issues Relating to the Environmental Clearance accorded by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 8^th August 2001 to the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project of M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd.

No.	Clearance Condition	Comments/Clarifications Sought
Preamble of Clearance
1.	“the EIA Notification is attracted to the road/expressway component and power plant”. (Para 2)	Does this imply that the rest of the facilities have no environmental and social impact?
2.	“the power plant shall be obtained at a later date as per the rules and regulation applicable” (Para 2)	Has the location of the power plant already been determined? Has the fuel linkage for the plant been established? Or is this also to be decided at a later stage?
3.	“the scope of the project for the purpose of this clearance under reference is limited to the road/expressway component of the BMIC project.” (Para 2)	What is the material definition of “road/expressway component of the BMIC project”?
4.	“4076 acres would be required for the expressway alone” (Para 3)	Once again, do the 4076 include all roads and their attendant facilities, or only the 111 kms. expressway?
5.	“168 acres of forest land for which in principle approval for diversion of forest land has been obtained.” (Para 3)	We would like to be made aware of what exactly are the implications of the “in principle” approval for diversion of forest land. Further it is not clear for what purpose the forests are being acquired: road/expressways or townships or power plant?
6.	“Public hearing for the project was held at Mysore, Bangalore, Mandya..” (Para 3)	We would like to point out, as we have repeatedly done in the past, that the NHRC is still examining the issue as to whether human right violations took place at the so-called public hearings. As a result, the question of whether the hearings were in fact held remains open. As the legal status of the Hearings remains contested, given that the final decision is based on the claim that these Statutory Hearings were “held”, the entire process of clearance is contested.
7.	“the water requirement (during construction) will be met through supply from Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board.” (Para 3)	Does this not agitate against the stated purpose of BWSSB that of providing water for the Bangalore region? This especially considering that the project as cleared involves other districts too over which BWSSB has no jurisdiction? And per the NOC of KSPCB the construction water requirements is to be met from effluent discharge from Bangalore, whereas the Ministry clearance skirts this issue.
8.	“1320 families are likely to be affected as a result of the project” (Para 3)	Why “likely” when Land Acquisition process was initiated in 1997? We would like to be informed as to the basis of this figure. The clearance mentions the word “project” here; does this apply to the entire project? Further, has a Social Impact Assessment ever been conducted on the project and if so could you please provide us a copy of this assessment?
9.	It follows that “the project affected persons will be resettled and rehabilitated as per the plan approved by the Government of Karnataka” (Para 3)	Following from our earlier question, in case the word “project” does apply to the 111 km. road alone, then what is to be the fate of those persons displaced by other components of the project? Is the MoEF concerned as to the social impact of the related components? In such a case why has there been such a narrow definition to the term “project-affected person”. We would like to know as to which plan this reference is made as the same seems to have emerged very recently and without any consultation with project affected communities.
10.	“the total cost is estimated to be Rs. 1930 crores.” (Para 3)	By what estimate has this amount been arrived at? Various other estimates have been floated in the past including in the NOC accorded by the KSPCB. Again does the project cost include only the 111 kms expressway road, or other components as well?
11.	“the Proposal has been examined in the Ministry of Environment and Forests…” (Para 4)	Who in the Ministry has reviewed the proposal? Could you please furnish details of the review process?
Specific Conditions
12.	(a) (i) “All the conditions stipulated by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vide their letter No. KKSPCB/CFE/DEO-2/AEO-2/2000-2001/208 dated 11^th August, 2000 shall be effectively implemented.”	It must be noted here that the so mentioned KSPCB NOC’s No. 1 Condition states: “The Project is to be cleared from all other angles of environment by the committee constituted by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi”. The NOC considers the project under review to include all the project components as proposed by the investor, M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise. Considering that now the environmental clearance only reviews the project from the point of view of unspecified “road/expressway” component, we would like to know who would comply with the NOC condition referred to above. Further, clarification is sought as to what is the nature of the Committee referred to above and if the same has cleared the project?
13.	(a) (ii) “All the conditions stipulated by this Ministry while according forestry clearance for diversion of forest land shall be strictly implemented”	We are at a loss as to understand whether the clearance has been accorded, or has been accorded only in principle?
14.	(a) (v) “noise barriers will be provided at the appropriate locations so as to ensure that the noise levels do not exceed the prescribed standards”	What are the specifications of the noise barriers to be provided? And what are “appropriate” locations?
15.	(a) (vi) mentions “Appropriate arrangements for providing percolation pits…”	Could the specific meaning of “Appropriate” please be clarified in terms of design or standards?
16.	(a) (vii) mentions “Appropriate arrangement for providing of percolation pits, storm water drainage and culverts shall be provided..”	What is “appropriate” supposed to mean?
17.	(a) (viii) mentions that “the solid wastes will be disposed in identified areas…”	Will these identified areas be located within the proposed townships, or without? If in the latter case, is the amount of land required defined along with locations? What is the applicability of the MoEF Solid Waste Management Notification in this regard?
18.	(a) (ix) mentions that “ Specific environmental clearance for the power plant shall be obtained as per the rules applicable to the same”	When the power plant was proposed as part of the comprehensive project for which the investor claimed the MECON conducted EIA was a comprehensive study of the environmental and social impacts; and when the MoEF has admitted that this EIA does not in any way discuss the impacts of the power plant, would it not be appropriate to reject the EIA as prescribed in the EIA Notification of being incomplete? Further, does this condition not amount to providing a fait acompli situation for the siting of the power plant?
19.	(a) (x) mentions that “ no sand will be withdrawn from the river beds for construction of this project.”	Does this prohibition extend to disallowing withdrawal of sand to the other components of the project, such as townships for instance? By implication does it justify that the company can withdraw sand/silt from other water bodies? Eg. Irrigation tanks, canals, etc.
20.	(a) (xiii) mentions that as “adequate number of under passes shall be provided in the portion of the alignment passing through habitations.”	What is understood by the use of the term adequate? Also, the condition applies only the areas where there are habitations. What about areas where there are fields, and open areas used for grazing, etc?
21.	(a) (xiv) mentions that “Adequate Avenue Plantation shall be carried out all along the alignment and specific allocation of funds shall be made in this regard…”	What is understood by the use of the term adequate? Similarly what does “specific allocation of funds” involve in terms of volume of money or percentage of investment?
General Conditions
22.	(b) (i) mentions that “adequate provision for infrastructure facilities including water supply, fuel, and sanitation must be ensured for construction workers during construction phase of the project in order to avoid any damage to the environment”.	Once again we would like to clarify as to who determines what is appropriate and based on what standards?
23.	(b) (ii) mentions that “appropriate measures must be taken while undertaking digging activities to avoid any likely degradation of water quality”.	By what standard do we determine the appropriateness of the measures taken?
24.	(b) (iii) mentions that “borrow sites for earth, quarry sites for road construction material and dump sites must be identified keeping in view the following:”	Considering that this implies the sites would be ex situ, and given the extraordinarily high quantum of the material demanded, has the Ministry reviewed this condition based on a list of proposed borrow or quarry sites? And with regard to the quarry sites, does the Ministry have material evidence of prior clearance from the Karnataka Dept of Mines and Geology?
25.	(b) (iii) point (b) requires that, “ No excavation or dumping shall be allowed on wetlands, forest areas or other ecologically valuable or sensitive locations.”	What criteria define areas to be “ecologically valuable or sensitive”? Has a list of such areas been supplied to the Ministry by the relevant agencies and/or the investor?
26.	(b) (iii) point (c) requires that “Excavation work should be done in consultation with the Soil Conservation and Watershed Development Agencies working in the area;”	We would like a clarification as to which Department of the Government is this condition referred to?
27.	(b) (vi) mentions that “borrow pits and other scars created during the road construction should be properly levelled and treated”.	The KSPCB clearance requires that the scars be used as water harvesting structures. Given that the first condition of the Ministry’s clearance requires full compliance of the NOC conditions of the KSPCB, and considering this particular condition is contradictory to the KSPCB condition, what is the action that would result?
28.	(b) (vii) mentions that “ the project-affected people, if any, should be adequately rehabilitated and the details in this regard should be furnished to the Ministry”	Once again we would like a clarification as to what is the definition of the “project affected people”? Is it only those affected by the road/expressway”? Admittedly, the information on the PAP is not available to the Ministry, as the same is yet to be “furnished”. It is also admitted by the investor NICE that the EIA supplied for clearance was “Comprehensive”. We would thus like to know on what basis was the clearance accorded when such fundamental information that constitutes a requisite component of a “Comprehensive” EIA has not been made available to the Ministry. Does this not violate another fundamental clause of the EIA Notification which clearly states that incomplete reports will not form the basis of a clearance or induce decisions to reject the project proposed?
29.	(b) (xiv) mentions that “ in the event of a change in project profile or change in the implementation agency, a fresh reference shall be made to the Ministry of Environment and Forests”.	Does not the EIA Notification require that in such eventuality there be a fresh clearance rather than a mere referral?
30.	(b) (xvii) mentions that, “State Pollution Control Board should display a copy of the clearance letter at the Regional Office, District Industries Centre and Collector’s Office/Tehsildar’s officer for 30 days.	From when does this period of thirty days commence?