A collection of Case Studies indicative of Environmental issues in India
A collation by Environment Support Group for
The Access Initiative Launch in Bangalore, Oct-Nov 2004
Note: ESG has collated these notes to throw light on the range of environmental issues in India. This is not an
effort to present a comprehensive picture of the situation, but is merely indicative. We do not vouch for the
accuracy of the facts reported in these notes.
Water Sector- Seonath River Privatisation, Chattisgarh
Our policies over the last 50 years have resulted in our rivers dead and dirty, our ground water exhausted and polluted.
Over these years, there has been a furtive attempt to assert the Principle of Eminent Domain over water that has always
been a peoples' resource, in place of the Public Trust Doctrine that defines the role of the state with respect to natural
resources, the collective wealth of the people.
The State has shifted its stand from the National Water Policy of 1982, with its emphasis on community-owned water
resources, to the New Water Policy, declared in 2002, which focuses on encouraging private sector participation in water.
This policy has also been adopted by many of the state governments, and water privatisation has begun in several states.
The most egregious of these privatisation efforts was that of the Chattisgarh Government. It leased out River Sheonath in
the Durg region for a period of 22 years on a Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) scheme to the private corporation
Radius Water Limited, despite protests from civil society and local communities. From time immemorial, this river provided
water for the villagers living by its banks for irrigation, fishing, drinking, washing, and bathing. Radius Water regulated
these activities, banning fishing and the diverting of water for irrigation within the 18-kilometre radius it controls. The
contract also covered ground water and meters installed on tube wells supplying water to local industries. The corporation
sells water at US$0.26 per cubic metre. At a supply rate of four million litres of water per day it was expected to generate
revenues of US$127 million in 20 years.
Obviously, the people of Chattisgarh did not take this privatisation lying down and vigorously protested and opposed the
move. As a result of these efforts, a legal battle was won leading to the cancellation of the privatisation contract of the
Sheonath river.
Queens Mary College-Chennai, Tamil Nadu
The Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (EPA), gives vast powers to the Central Government to take steps to control
pollution of air, water and land all over the country. Acting under this authority, the MoEF issued the Coastal Regulation
Zone (CRZ) notification in September 1991 to regulate developmental activities (including housing and tourism) in a
0.5km. wide belt of the country's 8000 km. long coastline. The notification classified coastal lands into zones in which
either no construction would be permitted, or only the then-existing land-use or tourism-related activities would be
allowed. Coastal states were directed to prepare maps showing the 0.5km. wide CRZ along with the then- current landuse and send them to the MoEF for classification and approval.
The government of Tamil Nadu felt the CRZ power rather heavily when the MoEF restricted the powers of the state in
such a way that demolition of any structure within the coastal regulation zone and of heritage value, or being used as a
hospital, or being used an educational institution will have to be referred to the Central government for prior approval.
In addition, the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of January 1994 (amended, in May, 1994) issued under the
EPA, lists 33 categories of industries as requiring environmental clearance from the MoEF if the investment exceeds
Rs.50 crore (now enhanced to Rs. 100 crore). Very recently, the EIA has been put to greater effect by bringing within its
realm all urban projects costing over Rs.50 crore, provided they employ 1000 persons or more and generate sewage
above a threshold limit.
The Tamil Nadu government's decision to pull down the Queen Mary's College on the Marina Promenade in Chennai, to
build a new secretariat complex at Kotturpuram was impacted with this notification.
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
1 of 17
Dandeli Dam, Karnataka
As if six dams on the river were not enough, there are attempts to build a seventh dam on the Kali River near Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka. If built, the dam will generate a mere 18 MW of electricity but will submerge an
additional 210 ha of forests along the Kali and abutting the Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary. In addition, the last 8 km long freeflowing stretch of the river will be lost forever. This last free-flowing stretch also includes some of the best white water
rapids in India near Dandeli.
This proposed seventh dam is to be built by Murudeshwar Power Corporation Limited (MPCL). This proposal was first
mooted in 2000. The EIA for this project was conducted twice, both times fraudulent. The first EIA done by the
international consulting firm Ernst and Young was an absolute plagiarized copy of the Rapid EIA of the Tattihalla
Augmentation Scheme prepared by the Institute for Catchment Studies and Environmental Management, Bangalore. The
second EIA by TERI was also fraudulent since it did not comply with the norms of an EIA – it seems to have been
prepared in a hurry. ESG exposed both these EIAs. Construction of this new dam would be a significant violation of the
19th May 1987 Government of Karnataka order stating that no further projects involving diversion of forest land for other
uses will be undertaken on Kali River or its tributaries. The latest Supreme Court decisions have upheld the spirit of this
order.
Jadugoda, Jharkhand
On 15th April 2004, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the hazardous impact
of the uranium waste disposal by the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) at Jadugoda, East Singbhum District of
Jharkhand. Uranium waste disposal by UCIL at Jadugoda has been causing health hazards to the Adivasis of Jadugoda
and the surrounding areas as result of radiation emissions. This has been happening for several decades leading to the
adivasis falling prey to cancer. To overcome these problems, and to take proper measures, the PIL made a prayer to the
Supreme Court to take cognizance of the matter and intervene to direct the UCIL, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),
and other concerned authorities to take all possible steps under a time bound programme to ensure that the radioactive
effluents generated by the mining and allied activities of the Jadugoda uranium mines are controlled and treated properly
so that the same do not cause serious hazards to the health and lives of those working or living in or around the Jadugoda
uranium mines.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that in view of affidavit filed by AEC’s Chairman that adequate steps have been
taken to check and control radiation arising out of uranium waste, the Court does not see any merit in the petition and
accordingly, it has been dismissed.
The fact of the matter is that no such measures have been taken and the local adivasis are continuously becoming victims
to hazards of deadly radiation. The dismissal of the petition once again shows the Supreme Court’s reluctant attitude
towards actual problems faced by the adivasi people of Jadugoda. This can be said to be latest and yet another example
of denial of adivasi peoples’ rights to health and life, in the name of the 'national interest', and 'development'.
(Source: compiled from various sources)
Biotech-Bangalore, Karnataka
Biotechnology is the latest phenomenon of Bangalore after IT since Bangalore is considered the science capital of India.
IT exports from Karnataka accounted for 40% of Indian exports in this sector during 1999-2000, and stood at over 5000
crores, and have been increasing. Now, the Government of Karnataka dreams to make Bangalore the Biotech City of
India. It has constituted a Biotechnology Vision Group to spearhead initiatives in Biotechnology. It has created the
Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology at the IT Park in Whitefield. It has placed Biotechnology under the
Department of IT. The pro-active policies of the Government, the cultural and economic milieu of a high-tech city: all
seem to be the right ingredients for a desired success but Biotech is still in its embryonic stage in India and the
Government guarantees an exponential growth!
More than 85 biotech companies have been established in Karnataka and this number exceeds any other state. 90% of
the biotech companies in Karnataka are in Bangalore. However, very little fundamental agri-biotech research is being
carried out here. There have been very few field tests. The farmers have never been integrated into the testing process.
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
2 of 17
There may be a few good laboratories, but there exists a big gap between the lab and the land (field research). A socially
responsible collaboration between private/public sector scientists and academicians with the farming community with
more proactive field-testing is greatly lacking. With the problems of the technology divide, lack of agri-tech molecular
biologists, and lack of indigenous research, should the city move towards this glistening bubble?
Singareni Coal Mine, Andhra Pradesh
The Singareni Collieries, is jointly owned by Government of India and the Andhra Pradesh government. It has mining
operations in four districts - Karimnagar, Warangal, Adilabad, and Khammam. It has 67 working mines, 55 underground
and 12 open cast mines, with a total workforce of 99,000. The daily coal production works out to 80,000 tonnes. (Source:
rediffmail.com, June 17 2003).
In a recent development, Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) and the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation
Company (AP Genco) are to form joint ventures for mining and power generation. A committee has been set up by the
public utilities and one of the proposals being considered is that SCCL and the equipment suppliers have 30% equity
participation each and the remaining 40% will be with AP Genco.
AP Genco plans to expand capacity from 6000 MW to 12000 MW in the next three years and needs huge supplies of coal.
SCCL is unable to satisfy even a part of this requirement. Further, SCCL is finding it unviable to produce additional coal
on its own and is seeking to jointly explore new blocks of coal. Additionally, the Centre has cleared mining for two new
blocks in Sattupally and Khammam districts. Open cast mining is expected to start from October 2005 in Sattupally
district. (Source: Business Standard on 6 October 2004)
In the Singareni mines, no limits are generally imposed on sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions from power
generation, nor are there targets for reducing greenhouse gases. The other issues of concern with these mines are:
resettlement of communities, rehabilitation of mined sites, dust, noise, and underground fires. These social and
environmental issues are likely going to be causes of concern in the new proposed mines. These new mines need to be
monitored for compliance with socio-environmental norms for such projects, perhaps at the stage of initiating EIAs for
these new projects.
Dahanu Taluka and the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority, Maharashtra
Dahanu Taluka (Thane district, located 120 km from Mumbai) is known for its horticulture and fisheries. It also has a long
history of battles to keep itself green. Due to local struggles, the Government issued a notification in June 1991 notifying
the Taluka as ecologically fragile. Local industrialists and politicians have repeatedly attacked this notification. In 1994,
Bittu Sehgal, environmentalist and editor of Sanctuary Magazine, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, demanding the
implementation of the notification in Dahanu taluka. The Supreme Court subsequently constituted the DTEPA (Dahanu
Taluka Environment Protection Authority) by its order of October 31 1996.
Nergis Irani and Kitayun Rustom founded the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group (which became the Dahanu
Taluka Environment Welfare Association, DTEWA) to fight a coal-fired thermal power plant to be set up by BSES
(Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply) and prevent it being set up in the area. Irani filed a writ petition challenging the
location of the plant in the Bombay High Court in 1989. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed her
contention. The plant received environmental clearance in 1989 and was ultimately set up in 1995.
Today, the region is faced with a massive problem of air quality and environment degradation. Fed up with the pollution
and loss of their agricultural produce, farmers recently formed the Dahanu Parisar Bachao Samiti (DPBS), collected 1,400
signatures, and sent a letter to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), demanding that the company install an
Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) plant and also switch to a cleaner fuel like gas. Farmers also petitioned the DTEPA to
monitor development in the region. While the MPCB issued a five-year consent for the plant in March 2004, the DTEPA
reduced it to one year, subject to the installation of an FGD. Back in 1999, DTEPA had asked BSES to install a FGD
plant, but, nothing has happened so far.
The MoEF filed an application in the Supreme Court in January 2002 to scrap the DTEPA. It said that the continuance of
DTEPA was not necessary as it has already considered and dealt with various matters and the only major activity was the
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
3 of 17
finalisation of the development plan for Dahanu. It asserts that there must be a single authority for all eco-fragile or ecosensitive areas in India or a monitoring committee to advise the ministry of environment.
However, the MoEF’s reasons lack credibility. It would appear that the government does not appreciate efficiency at the
cost of ruffling powerful feathers. Things turned against the DTEPA when it took tough decisions like the refusal of
permission to a 29-berth port at Vadhwan in Dahanu taluka. There exists a powerful industry lobby pressing for its
termination, which has also been unhappy with the 1991 government notification. Nergis Irani asserts that the MoEF is
acting this way due to pressure by Reliance Energy (which took over BSES) which wants to expand the plant’s operation
from 500MW to 2000MW.
The DTEPA has been doing commendable work and probably too much to the discomfort of the government and is a
good example of how the Environment Protection Act can be used to give decentralised powers to an expert committee.
Yet, all such decentralized working authorities will have to face up to the powerful industrial lobbies that have a greater
say over ministries like the MoEF which are supposed to be strengthening entities like the DTEPA rather than scrapping
them.
(Source: Meena Menon, The Hindu, June 6, 2004; Meena Menon, InfoChange News & Features, June 2003)
Tipaimukh Dam, Manipur
The Tipaimukh Hydroelectric Project (HEP) is located in Manipur. The project cost as estimated by the North-Eastern
Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) is Rs. 5225.70 crores. The project has to be completed within 10 years and, by
that time the project cost could rise up to Rs 8,867 crores.
The government of Manipur signed the MoU with NEEPCO in January 2003 despite loud and persistent protests by local
groups and communities. Due to the efforts of Concern for Dams & Development (CCDD) and Committee against
Tipaimukh Dam, the Power Minister, Mr. T.Phungzathang, made a copy of the MoU available. However, project reports
are still being maintained as classified documents. Such lack of transparency makes a mockery of the gazette notification
(under section 29 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948) that was issued on January 20, 2003 wherein citizens are given
two months (from 18 Jan 2003) to submit any representation regarding this project.
The Impact assessments by the governmental agencies were found wanting in many respects. For eg. the Zoological
Survey of India (ZSI) report attached with the project documents was found to be very inadequate by officials in the MoEF.
It was felt that the area needs to be re-assessed for faunal diversity before the project is granted clearance.
The Manipur State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) has apparently taken a decision to postpone the Public Hearing for
the Tipaimukh Hydro Electric Project indefinitely. This decision was taken at a closed informal meeting at the MSPCB on
14th September 2004 and a formal notification in this regard is being awaited to be made to the public. The postponement
came in the wake of objections submitted to the MSPCB by four organisations, CCDD, Centre for Environment Protection
(Mizoram), Nature Protection Society (Mizoram) and Centre for Organisation Research & Education (CORE), Manipur.
(Source: http://www.hmar.org; The Telegraph Northeast, February 1, 2002, Power giant to sign MoU Neepco woos
Manipur with relief offer)
Eloor - Edayar Industrial area - Kerala
Eloor is an island situated on the banks of Periyar river with a population of 40,000. The largest Industrial Belt in Kerala is
located at Eloor, with more than 247 chemical industries that manufacture petrochemical products, pesticides, rare-earth
elements, rubber processing chemicals, fertilizers, zinc/chrome products, leather products etc. These industries discharge
173.5 million liters of highly polluted effluents per day into the river Periyar. This leads to the large-scale devastation of
aquatic life in the river and also destroys agricultural lands. In addition to this, there are many unidentified chemicals in the
air, water and soil. The factories are located in such a way that they trap the entire island and the only bridge to the
mainland is far away from the residential area. In the event of a chemical disaster like the one that happened in Bhopal,
the local residents have no way to escape.
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
4 of 17
A three-member team of the Supreme Court's Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Chemicals
visited the State recently. At the conclusion of its visit, the committee issued a slew of directions to "reverse this terrible
situation in the State and to ensure compliance of the court's orders." It directed the State PCB to order the immediate
closure of industrial units that have no authorisation to operate under the Hazardous Waste Rules until they installed
proper facilities to dispose of the wastes.
Based on the `polluter pays' principle, it imposed a collective fine of Rs.2.5 crores on all the units in the industrial estate of
Eloor and Edayar. The fine is to be utilised "to monitor the health of the river, to create conditions for the re-entry of life in
the river and to restore its ecology". The committee said it could think of no other way "to raise an appropriate alarm and
to jolt the industrial units into doing something drastic about the present state of affairs". The PCB was also asked to set
up a Local Area Environment Committee (LAEC) to conduct an environment audit, within six months, of all the 247
industries near the Periyar and in the Udyogamandal industrial estate.
(Source: PUCL ; Frontline, Sep 25 –Oct 8,Pollution unchecked, R. KRISHNAKUMAR)
Draft National Tribal Policy
The Draft National Tribal Policy 2004 was available for comments only on the website of the ministry. Secondly, the
language of the document is in English. Since the policy is meant to address the issues of the Adivasis, the document
should have been provided at a place where they could have easy access. Further, the ministry should have necessarily
translated the document in languages that the Adivasis can understand. In its current form, the policy is limited in its
accessibility and a wider public participation in this process is not possible.
Regional workshops conducted by various groups were conducted to discuss the policy. Participants rejected the draft
national policy and termed it as a project proposal rather than a policy document. The opening words in the policy it ‘seeks
to bring scheduled tribes into the mainstream of society’, has been severely criticised along with other issues.
Biodiversity Bill and Rules
On 15th April 2004, the MoEF notified the Biological Diversity Rules under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. For those
who had already been raising concerns about the Act, the rules just added on to the apprehensions. Others, who had
hoped that the rules would help plug the gaps, were sorely disappointed. Prior to 2002, there was no legal protection for
biodiversity in India, and the Act was intended to provide some space for biodiversity conservation. Today, there is a
strong opinion that the little space the Act provided has been completely diluted with the new set of Rules meant to
operationalise the Act.
Under this Act, a National Biodiversity Authority has been set up in Chennai and the process of setting up State-level
Biodiversity Boards is under way. The Act also envisions Biodiversity Management Committees in each panchayat and
municipality to take care of the bio-resources at the local level. These local committees are expected to collect all the
biodiversity information of their area in "People's Biodiversity Registers". The Central and State-level bodies had no
representation of farmers, tribals, pastoralists, or other communities and thus they would not be able to control the use of
the information thus collected on their bio-resources.
(Source : Kanchi Koli, July 2004 ; India together.com)
Essar pipeline through Jamnagar Marine National Park, Gujarat
Essar oil has proposed a crude oil pipeline in Gujarat to carry crude oil from ships to its Rs.10,000 crore refinery in
Jamnagar which is capable of producing 10.5mm tons of crude oil per annum This pipeline, as proposed, will pass
through the Jamnagar Marine National Park and Sanctuary which is home to several species of corals, dolphins, dugongs
and other endangered species. The construction of the pipeline, leaks from the pipeline, and other maintenance work will
cause destruction in this Park and disturb areas of fragile ecology. In addition, allowing such a pipeline through the
sanctuary would set a precedent for any commercial activity in any protected area. Yet, the Chief Wildlife Warden of the
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
5 of 17
Park gave permission for the pipeline to pass through the Park under section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972,
stating that the laying of the pipeline will be beneficial to the sanctuary. It is not clear in what way laying the pipeline will
benefit the sanctuary.
Jan Sangarsh Morcha filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Gujarat High Court against this move. In response to this
PIL, the High Court issued a judgment restraining the State Government from granting permission to lay pipelines across
the Marine National Park and Sanctuary in Jamnagar district.
A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Ruma Pal and Justice B.N Sri Krishna allowed appeals by Essar Oil
Ltd. and others against the Gujarat High Court judgment. In the Supreme Court, Environmental Justice Initiative argued
the case on behalf of Jan Sangharsh Morcha. As of January 19th 2004, the Supreme Court had asked the High Courts to
ensure that the developmental activities in the State were not hampered in the guise of protecting the environment. The
Supreme Court ruled that once a State Government takes all precautions to ensure that the impact on environment was
transient and minimal, a court would not substitute its own assessment in place of the opinion of experts to scuttle an
economic project.
This obviously is a boost to the Essar group and its pipeline and refinery projects which were hanging fire for almost a
decade due to environmental impact issues on the marine national park and sanctuary at Vadinar. But, this is yet another
example where the Supreme Court has issued a retrograde judgment with respect to the environment.
Port proposals, Orissa
A 1,500 crore port project at Dhamra has been revived in Orissa. Work was to have started in the year 2000, but,
environmentalists and wildlife enthusiasts have been opposing it because the project threatens the nesting site of over
half a million Olive Ridley turtles, an endangered species.
The port project is promoted by International Seaports Ltd., a company in which industrial major Larson & Toubro Ltd
holds a third of the stake. The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI) Bank is the lead financier of
the project. Ironically, ICICI had contributed Rs. 50 lakhs to the BNHS to initiate a Green Governance Program (GGP) to
sensitize corporate houses, financial institutions, and the media to issues on biodiversity, wildlife habitats, environmental
laws, and conventions. Only about month after the initiation of GGP by ICICI, the Hindu Business Line reported that the
construction work at the Dharma port is expected to begin in December 2003.
The Bhitarkanika belt of the Orissa coast one of the most significant patches on the earth for the long-term survival of the
Olive Ridley turtle, a reptile that has been around for millions of years. This is the largest rookery in the world for the
critically endangered species and half a million turtles nest here every winter. For the last few years, thousands of these
turtles are being washed ashore dead, after being caught in the nets of the trawlers that continue to ply here illegally
during the breeding season. It has been estimated that more than 2,500 hectares of mangrove forests, primarily in the
Paradip-Dhamra belt were destroyed in the 1960s when the Paradip port was constructed. This area has since emerged
as the most cyclone-prone zone. According to official sources, out of the total 200 sq km of mangrove forest in the
Mahanadi delta, only about 30 sq. km is left. Recent amendments to the Coastal Regulation Zone Rules have provided a
loophole, which the State government is trying to exploit to avoid environmental clearance. This has created one of the
biggest loopholes in environmental legislation in the country, allowing in the process, for the development of at least a
100-odd such "minor ports" along the country's coastline. Many like Dhamra in fact are located in areas that are
ecologically extremely sensitive. Unless there is massive resistance at this stage itself, Bhitarkanika may well be lost
forever.
Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka
The Kudremukh National Park forms an important area of the forests in the Western Ghats. This National Park is rich in
wildlife and comprises of tropical evergreen forests, shola grasslands, and mixed evergreen forests. It was notified in 1987
by the State of Karnataka by including the areas under the Tungabhadra State Forest, the South Bhadra State Forest, the
Naravi Reserve Forest, Bhagavathi forest, and the Andar Reserve Forest. Two major tributaries, the Tunga & Bhadra
originate in the Bhagavathi forest.
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
6 of 17
Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd.(KIOCL), has been mining for iron ore in the Kudremukh region on the basis of a 30year mining lease, despite fundamental violations of wildlife and forest conservation legislation. Over the years, the mining
has destroyed highly sensitive tropical evergreen shola forests in vast areas, threatened wildlife populations and habitats,
and polluted the Bhadra river causing crop losses to farming communities and wiping out aquatic life. The area which
was once known for its scenic splendour has ugly scars of roads cut across these forests resulting in landslides. In
addition to mining-induced destruction, KIOCL has also forced an increase of the height of Lakya dam submerging 340 ha
of land outside the lease area.
Notwithstanding all this, the MoEF kept granting temporary working permissions to the KIOCL for mining inside this
sensitive habitat, even though the mining lease had expired. A Supreme Court directive based on an intervention by
Wildlife First and others has finally asked for stoppage of mining by the end of 2005. The Supreme Court in its order was
critical of the inconsistency of the Central and State Government in this matter.
Recently, trouble has been brewing in this region owing to the State Government's proposal to rehabilitate the adivasis
who go out of the forests voluntarily in order to protect the dwindling forest cover. The adivasis are increasingly coming
under the influence of the People’s War Group, a Naxal Movement, that commits to fight for their rights.
Eviction of adivasis from Nagarhole National Park, Karnataka
Karnataka's Nagarhole National Park is part of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, an area which includes, besides Nagarhole,
the neighbouring sanctuaries of Bandipur, Mudumalai and Wynaad. Established in 1955 as a wildlife sanctuary,
Nagarhole was designated a national park twenty years later. The park today stretches over an expanse of 640 sq km,
north of the river Kabini which was dammed in 1974. During the dry season (Feb-June), this perennial water source
attracts large numbers of animals, making it a potentially prime spot for sighting wildlife.
In 1992, friction between local pastoralist adivasis and the park wardens over grazing rights and poaching erupted into a
spate of conflicts. This was soon followed by a controversial decision in 1996 to bring this area under a Rs.294.9 crore
five-year programme called the Eco-Development Project launched with World Bank aid to conserve biodiversity in seven
protected areas (PAs). There are over 9,000 adivasis living in 58 colonies inside the Nagarhole PA & 24,000 adivasis live
on the periphery of the PA. Forest authorities ruled that nobody is allowed to live inside protected national parks and
wanted to evict the adivasis. The adivasis mounted severe resistance to the project foreseeing their catastrophic plight
with the loss of their habitats, their life support systems and traditional identity.
The adivasi position was justified by the World Bank Inspection Panel with their visit to the National Park in September
1998. In their response to WB, the India Management and Government of Karnataka have maintained that no forceful
dislocation is or will be effected from Nagarhole National Park. However 58 adivasi villages are being resettled, in houses
made of breeze blocks dispersed on a deforested plain away from the forest, even though they meet the definition of
Indigenous Peoples who must be protected under World Bank funding guidelines. Furthermore, the land they have been
given can only sustain them for six months of the year and they have to leave their new homes for four months of the year
to work on coffee plantations in a neighbouring district. Activists say that villages were forced at gun-point out of their
homes in the middle of the night and moved to their new prefabricated houses. But, the adivasis are reluctant to talk about
this because, to survive, they have to work for the Forestry Department, the very same people who evicted them.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Madhya Pradesh
The world's worst industrial disaster occurred on December 2, 1984 when 60 tonnes of the deadly methyl isocyanate
leaked out of the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal killing in its wake 15,000 people. The deadly gas killed around 4000
people instantaneously. At least one person a day still dies from gas related diseases and 1,50,000 are in urgent need of
medical attention. Nearly 20 years after the accident, there are signs that a second tragedy is in the making. New
environmental studies indicate that tons of toxic material dumped at the old plant has now seeped into the groundwater,
affecting a new generation of Bhopal citizens.
The people of Bhopal have not only suffered the lethal effects of the gas but have also been exploited since the tragedy.
Union Carbide never fully revealed the nature of the gas that was leaked thus impeding medical treatment. The 5 lakh
victims received some relief in 2004 in the form of the Supreme Court's order directing the Centre to disburse to the
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
7 of 17
survivors Rs 1,505.46 crores ($470 million) that is part of the settlement reached with the Union Carbide Corporation. This
works out to a little more than Rs 25,000 per person. They had hoped the government would push for a larger amount as
compensation as its original claim was for $3 billion, an amount that conferred to settlements for similar cases in the
United States. Officials have blamed the difficulty of identifying genuine victims for compensation as the reason for delay
which cannot be justified. This meager “compensation” has only recently been released following a Supreme Court order.
The organisations fighting for the rights of the Bhopal victims have concentrated on fixing liability for the disaster on Union
Carbide and Dow Chemicals which acquired the former in 2001. They have pushed for these companies to accept their
responsibility and clean up the mess they left behind. In June 2004, the Centre and the Madhya Pradesh Government
sent a letter to an American court stating that they had no objection to the court directing Dow Chemicals to clean up the
poisons left behind that have percolated into the surrounding soil and water. Although holding these corporations liable is
important, the Centre and the State cannot be absolved of all blame. The Madhya Pradesh Government, for instance, has
a great deal to explain why it did not monitor a plant using dangerous chemicals when it was located near a large human
settlement. Both the Center and the State have also dragged their feet a great deal in securing justice, compensation,
and ensuring proper medical treatment for the gas victims. But for the tenacity and persistence of the gas victims and
their organizations, they would have been long forgotten.
Cubbon Park, Bangalore, Karnataka
For almost a decade now there have been several Public Interest Litigations challenging the several encroachments into
Cubbon Park. These petitions have challenged almost every form of disturbance (traffic, debris, garbage disposal) as well
as the lack of maintenance of the Park. The latest of these petitions challenged the construction of the Annexe to the
Legislators Home (LH). On 30 July 1998, the Government of Karnataka by an order denotified over 45 acres of the park to
be able to build the LH Annexe to have their families live with them when the Assemblies are in session.
The moot question that the Government refused to answer is how the Annexe even came up before the notification. The
construction of the Annexe was a most blatant violation of the law, especially considering that Cubbon Park was brought
under extraordinary legal protection by the enactment of the Karnataka Parks (Preservation) Act of 1975, and since all of
the area that is presently the disputed land was re-notified to be part of the Cubbon Park Area in 1983
In September 1998, the `Save Cubbon Park Campaign' was intiated and this evolved into a landmark protest for over 40
days involving thousands. Even as this debate was raging, the BWSSB proposed to put up a Rs. 2 crore sewage
treatment plant beside the Museum and a water reservoir as well.
The process of litigation went on for two years, and finally the High Court delivered its judgement stating nothing was
fundamentally against the Government of Karnataka deciding to denotify parts of the Cubbon Park. An appeal was filed
against this judgement in the Supreme Court of India. In 2002, the Supreme Court directed the state government to
maintain status quo with regard to the construction of the Legislature House annexe building. The order of the Supreme
Court was to bring to a standstill, the construction of the Legislators' Home and the water tank in the Indira Gandhi
Fountain park located in Cubbon Park.
Interlinking of Rivers, National
In pursuance of a direction from the Supreme Court, the Government of India set up in 2002, a taskforce to consider the
modalities of implementing a project to link the rivers of India. Advocates of interlinking of virtually all major rivers in the
country (with a phenomenal array of dams, bunds, canals, waterways, power projects etc.) are saying that the mindbogglingly gargantuan project will supply 34,000 megawatts (MW) of hydropower and irrigate an additional 35 million
hectares of land via approximately 40,000 kilometers of linkways.
India has an average annual flow of 1,869 billion cubic meters (bcm) of water. By 2050, it is expected that the country's
need for water will swell to 1,300 bcm. The general idea of river interlinking is to transfer waters from `surplus' eastern
rivers to `deficit' rivers in the central, western and southern regions of India. The proposal in its present form has two main
components: namely the Himalayan Rivers component and the Peninsular Rivers component. The Himalayan component
entails construction of reservoirs and canals on the main tributaries of the Ganga and the Brahmaputra to transfer excess
water to the west. The peninsular river interlinking has two components, one of interlinking the peninsular rivers
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
8 of 17
themselves and the other of linking the Ganga to the peninsular rivers. Water will be transferred either by gravity flows
(tunnelling through mountains) or by lifting across natural barriers.
Those `for' in the great divide on the interlinking issue recommend it on four basic grounds: that it will control floods,
eliminate drought, generate large quantities of electricity and provide employment to thousands. They tend to be
dismissive of the concerns over the environmental and human consequences of the project which include violent
disturbance of pristine areas, disruption of the habitat and movement routes of wildlife, loss of biodiversity, changes in
river morphology and water quality, submergence of forests, changes in the micro climate, displacement of people &
livestock, the consequent alteration of the river regime & the impacts of these on aquatic life, diminution of groundwater
recharging & so on.
The rough figure mentioned in the Supreme Court for the interlinking of rivers is Rs. 560,000 crores. This is double the
country's present foreign exchange reserves and 25 percent of its GDP. There are talks about privatization of this project;
but by allowing the private sector to invest in this project, the rights of the people for water resources may be affected.
Before looking for a loan from the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank, it is necessary to consider whether we will
be in a financial position to repay the loan as we are already running in debt.
There is no provision for any mechanism to deal with matters concerning inter-basin transfers. The Centre has no legal
authority to decide on this and no State will agree to vest the authority with the Centre. India is already having waterrelated conflicts among its states. The proposed canals will carry water through many neighbouring states and each state
will claim a portion of water, which may be a big problem to be tackled. Hence there is need for examining the presuppositions on which the interlinking project is based.
Some experts have proposed other alternatives for solving the water problems in India. Decentralized local rainwater
harvesting, reviving traditional techniques and recharging groundwater can meet essential requirements more effectively
and at a far lesser cost. There is also much scope for increasing the efficiency of the irrigation systems in place through
better water management.
Hydroelectric Projects, Himachal Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh, situated at the foot of the Himalayas is a picturesque state with abundant water resources. The state
is almost entirely mountainous with altitudes ranging from 460 to 6600 metres above sea level. Agriculture and tourism
drive the economy of the state. The major river systems of the region are the Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Sutlej and the Yamuna.
According to the 11th Quarterly Survey of Projects Investment conducted by Projects Today, as of 30 June 2003, the
state had 145 projects worth Rs.47,479 crore in various stages of planning and implementation.
Given the rivers that flow through the state, the HP government has undertaken several projects to exploit the
hydroelectric potential of the state. Most of the proposed investment is in hydel power projects. This is borne out by the
table below which lists HP's top ten projects. While state and central government agencies are largely concentrating on
mega- hydel projects, the private sector is being roped in to execute the mini and micro hydel segment.
Project
Company
Industry
Nathpa Jhakri Hydel Power Project
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.
Hydel Based Power
Koldam Hydel Power Project
NTPC
Hydel Based Power
Karcham Wangtu Hydel Power Project Jaiprakash Hydro Power Ltd. Hydel Based Power
Parbati Hydel Power Project Stage II NHPC
Hydel Based Power
Parbati Hydel Power Project Stage III
Rampur (HP) Hydel Power Project
Chamera Hydel Project Stage II
Baspa Hydel Power Project Stage II
Nathpa Jhakri Transmission Line
NHPC
Hydel Based Power
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.
Hydel Based Power
NHPC
Hydel Based Power
Jaiprakash Hydro Power Ltd. Hydel Based Power
Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Power Distribution
Chamera III, Hibra Hydel Power
NHPC
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
Hydel Based Power
9 of 17
Funding for these projects has come in from the World Bank, private banks like ICICI, nationalized banks like Central
Bank of India, various State Banks, and institutions like IFCI and PFC.
These projects have serious environmental and social impacts like most mega-hydel projects. In May 1999, ten square
kilometers of the Great Himalayan National Park – part of an important endemic bird area – was denotified for the
construction of the Parbati project. The 1500 MW Nathpa Jhakri project, which received a $485million WB loan in 1989,
was twice suspended by the MoEF in 2001 for “serious and continuous violations” of both the Forest Conservation Act
and the Environment Act. Projects such as Baira Siul and Chamera-I have been experiencing serious geological
problems and resettlement & rehabilitation (R&R) is another crucial issue in these projects. In Dec 1999, people affected
by the Chamera project went on a 18-day hunger strike protesting the lack of compensation for their losses. The
Chamera-I project has contributed to deforestation and has even been criticized by CIDA (Canadian International
Development Agency), one of its funders, that the Uri I dam will seriously impact fisheries on the Jhelum river. In practice,
the NHPC does not seem to follow any social or environmental policy.
Chemical Spill in Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park, Gujarat
The country’s first Marine National Park is spread over an area of nearly 458 sq.kms. in the Gulf of Kutch, 30 km. from
Jamnagar. One of the most threatened birds, the great Indian bustard finds a refuge in certain pockets of protected areas.
The world’s only four-horned antelope, the chowsingha is found here in healthy numbers. One of the largest herds of
blackjacks grace the grasslands of Velavadar and till recently Gujarat was the place where flamingos nested in huge
numbers. Dugong, a marine mammal that resembles a seal, along with the rare Borolo species has found home in the
protected areas of the Marine National Park in Mithapur.
On October 23, 2003, aquatic life and the fragile eco-system at the Park in Mithapur suffered a serious blow as solid
chemical waste from the adjacent Tata plant spilled into the park over 62 hectares, causing death of numerous marine
animals and micro organisms. Preliminary reports suggested that the spill affected over 1,500 mangrove plants and
several aquatic animals including sea turtles. The effluent formed a thick layer of 1m at several places.
Prior to the 2003 spill, three major spills have been reported in 1987, 1999, and 2001. While the cases of 1987 and 1999
spills are in the Supreme Court, the 2001 case is being heard in the Dwarka court. This time, the forest department filed a
caveat in the court to prevent Tata Chemicals from getting a stay order against GPCB’s (Gujarat Pollution Control Board)
decision to close down the factory. As a result, the plant remained closed for the sixth day. The decision to reopen the
factory was to be taken after GPCB officials submitted their report. On Nov 5, 2003, Tata Chemicals resumed operations
at its edible salt manufacturing plant at Mithapur. This followed a certificate from the GPCB stating that the effluent from
the plant was non-acidic and non-poisonous.
The Marine National Park suffers from many such threats. Other threats to the immensely fragile region are from
sedimentation, coral mining, mangrove cutting, sand mining, population pressure, commercial shell collection, fisheries
and industrial development.
In Jan 2004, the Supreme Court gave the go ahead to Essar Oil Ltd, Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd (BORL) and Gujarat
Bositra Port Co. Ltd who wanted to lay pipelines to pump crude oil from a single buoy mooring in the Gulf across a portion
of the Marine National Park and Sanctuary to their oil refineries in Jamnagar district. The Bench said courts could not be
asked to assess the environmental impact of pipelines on wildlife, but could at least oversee that those with established
credentials and who had the requisite expertise had been consulted and that their recommendations had been abided by
the State Government.
Thus, there is an alignment of interests including the Courts that are averse to issuing rulings and directions that impede
“development”, even at the cost of causing damage to fragile ecological areas. In this atmosphere, it is not unlikely for the
Marine National Park to face further destruction.
Teesta Dam, Sikkim
Plans to “tame” the Teesta have been in the offing since the 1970s -- to harness the river in six stages in Sikkim. Of this,
only one, a 510 MW, 96.5m high dam in Sikkim, has come through. Since this project was in an ecologically sensitive
area, the Wildlife Institute of India was commissioned to do a detailed ecological study. This was in addition to the usual
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
10 of 17
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). An ethnographic study was commissioned to study the project's impacts on
North Sikkim and on the Lepcha community, the original inhabitants of Sikkim with a distinct cultural and traditional
community life. Finally, and most importantly, when the project was granted environmental clearance, one of the
conditions was that no more projects would be developed on the Teesta in Sikkim till a carrying capacity study of the river
basin was completed.
Irrespective of whether these studies contributed to a better understanding of the project's impacts, or whether the check
and balances are being monitored, there was at least an effort to address some concerns while clearing the Teesta stage
V project. This seems to be lacking in the case of the Teesta “low dams”. The Teesta "Low Dam" Projects (TLDP) III and
IV have gained considerable attention since 2002. The projects are called "Low Dams" even though the barrages are 32.5
and 45 metres high. By the globally accepted definition of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), dams
above 15 m are in the category of large dams.
The TLDP III reservoir alone will submerge 156.49 hectares. Other big concerns from the TLDP projects are the impact on
the glacial behaviour on the river system and the occurrences of floods and seismic instability. These seem to have either
been overlooked or their impacts underplayed in the EIA report (of TLDP III). In addition, the TLDP projects would
submerge portions of NH-31A connecting Gangtok to Siliguri. Various NGOs have sent many letters to the MoEF and the
West Bengal Pollution Control Board, raising concerns about the proximity of the TLDP projects to the NH 31A in North
Bengal.
The NHPC proposed to have an alternative road through the Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary and Reserve Forests. This
Sanctuary constitutes the forests of the lower catchment area of the Mahananda. Situated at the western end of the North
Bengal elephant corridor, the sanctuary shelters more than 150 elephants during the monsoon and winter besides
housing many other species of animals and plants.
At an environmental public hearing for the Stage III project on January 3, 2003, locals articulated a number of concerns
with the project. According to a press release by an independent study team that visited the area, this is a highly seismic
area, frequented by landslides and landslips that erode the riverbank continuously. NH 31A and the numerous villages
along it are endangered due to these factors. The public hearing process of TLDP III clearly showed that despite
legislation and procedures for environmental protection, there is a need to "police" their implementation. If not for the
vigilance of local NGOs and concerned individuals, the public hearing for the project would have taken place without any
mandatory sharing of project reports.
Hydroelectric projects, Arunachal Pradesh
The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has identified 162 sites, spread across 16 states of India, for hydroelectric projects
with an aggregate installed capacity of 50,560 MW. According to preliminary feasibility reports prepared till July 5, 2004,
154 of the 162 sites have a potential to generate 47,190 MW of electricity. The CEA has now offered the sites to central
public sector units for preparation of detailed feasibility reports.
The preliminary reports revealed that of the 16 states, 41 projects in Arunachal Pradesh have a combined capacity of
21,660 MW. Of the 162 sites identified by CEA all over India, the largest capacity of 4,000 MW is proposed at Etalin in
Arunachal Pradesh with 16 units of 250 MW each. The second largest project will also be located in Arunachal Pradesh
at Demwe with a capacity to generate 3,000 MW of electricity. Bhareli-I, Oju-II, Naba, and Naying, all located in Andhra
Pradesh have generation capacity of 1,000 MW or more. In addition, of the 40 hydro units with installed capacity of over
500 MW all over India, a majority of them are in Arunachal Pradesh. The impacts of all these projects on the state’s
environment, ecology, and its people are going to be significant!
The Brahmaputra board has identified several multipurpose projects such as Menga, Dehang at Pasighat, Along,
Pugging, Lohit, Debang, Kameng. The Board completed Detailed Project Reports of the Subansiri and Dehang
multipurpose projects in 1984. Due to reservation of Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, as some important towns would have
submerged, the proposals have been changed to 3 cascades of dams in each basin and the Board has taken up the
investigations of three alternate sites for construction of moderately high dams on both Subansiri and Dehang rivers since
1996. These projects have now been handed over to NHPC in May 2000 for further investigations and subsequent
implementation thereof. The Subansiri would generate a total of 25,000 MW of power, whereas the Upper Siang project
would generate 11,000 MW and the Kameng project would produce 6,000 MW power.
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
11 of 17
The impacts of these projects are going to be significant. The Subansiri and Dehang hydel power projects alone will
require nearly 28,000 hectares of wildlife-stocked forestland and preliminary estimates put the cost at a whopping US $
200 billion. The Dehang-Debang Biosphere Reserve and the soon-to-be notified Namdapha Biosphere Reserve lie within
the proposed impact zone. The Kameng hydel power project at Tipi threatens the Namheri National Park and the Pakui
Wildlife Sanctuary, which have just been brought under the Project Tiger mantle.
The projects have been riddled by problems of shoddy Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments, no
projections been made on the cumulative effect of so many projects concentrated in a relatively small area, displacement
of millions, the geology of the area, siltation due to geological instability, seismicity and catchment denudation.
Andamans and Nicobar Projects
The Andaman and Nicobar islands are one of the three dominant tropical, moist evergreen biozones of the subcontinent
with a rich biological diversity. The islands are home to mammal groups such as bats and rodents, while the principal
endemic mammals are the dugong or sea-cow, the Nicobar crab-eating macaque and the Nicobar tree shrew, of which
there are different races in the Little and the Greater Nicobar islands. Of the 255 bird species and subspecies recorded in
the archipelago, as many as 112 are endemic. Some of these are the Nicobar Megapode, the highly endangered
Andamans or Grey Teal, the Narcondam Hornbill (found only on the seven sq. km. volcanic Narcondam island), the
Nicobar Pigeon, the Nicobar Parakeet, Andaman Wood Pigeon, the two species and races of the Crested Serpent Eagle.
More than half the nesting populations of green turtles and the bulk of hawksbill turtles are in these islands. In the Indian
region, the leathery turtles today breed only on the Nicobar Islands. A bewildering ten per cent of the 15,000 species of
higher plants recorded in the Indian region are totally restricted to this 8,000-sq. km. archipelago. Nearly 2,200 species
have been found here, and while more than 200 of these are strictly restricted to the islands, more than 50 percent
(around 1,300 species) are also found in Burma, Malaysia and adjoining Indonesia, but not in mainland India. Finally, the
mangrove, estuaries and lagoons in this archipelago harbour a wealth of fish and coral communities and are a valuable
indicator of the ecological health of the habitat. However, the islands have been at the receiving end of a spate of
“developmental” activities. According to the 11th Quarterly Survey of Projects Investments conducted by Projects
Today, as of 30 June 2003, Andaman & Nicobar Islands had 14 projects worth Rs.325 crore in various stages of
implementation. Most of the investment is by the central government.
The top ten projects underway in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are:
Projects
Company
Industry
Breakwater & Wharf - Car Nicobar Project
Dry Dock (Port Blair) Project
Airport (Port Blair) Project - Renovation
Deep Water Wharf (Blair Reef) Project
Berths (Nancowry) Project
Habour (Junglighat) Project
Deep Water Wharf (Campbell Bay)
Residential Project
Wharf (Hutbay) Project
Air Store Complex (Port Blair)
GoI, Ministry of Shipping
GoI, Ministry of Shipping
Airports Authority of India
GoI, Ministry of Shipping
GoI, Ministry of Shipping
GoI, Ministry of Shipping
GoI, Ministry of Shipping
Government of A&N
GoI, Ministry of Shipping
GoI, Ministry of Defence
Other Shipping Infrastructure
Dry Docks
Airways (Aviation Infrastructure)
Berths, Jetties
Berths, Jetties
Ports
Berths, Jetties
Real Estate
Berths, Jetties
Other Storage & Distribution
Recently, the one man Shekhar Singh Commission with a mandate “to look into the state of the islands’ forests and other
related matters” made 25 major recommendations in its report that was submitted to the Supreme Court which accepted
most of the recommendations in 2002.
The orders of the court were comprehensive and wide ranging. They included, among others, a ban on the commercial
exploitation of the timber from the island’s forests (except for the bonafide use of the local islander population), a ban on
the transport of timber from the islands to any part of the country, removal of encroachments from the forests of the
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
12 of 17
islands, declaration of the islands as an inner line area and issuance of Identity cards to islanders, shutting down the
Andamans and Nicobar Forest Plantation Development Corporation (ANFPDC), phasing out of existing monoculture
plantations of exotics like red oil palm, rubber and teak, shutting of the Andaman Trunk Road in those parts where it
passes through or along the Jarawa reserve, reducing sand mining from the beaches and encouragement of construction
materials and technologies appropriate for the island. Clear time frames have been given for the orders.
However, little has been done to implement the court’s order and blatant violations go unabated. The A&N administration
however seems adamant about not implementing these orders and has in fact filed before the SC asking for a review of
the orders (many months after the timelines have passed). The ATR cuts through the heart of the forests that the
Jarawas have called home for thousands of years. The Jarawa reserve has the last remaining patch of tropical evergreen
forests on the main Andaman islands. Over the years, a large influx of people to the island has severely marginalized the
indigenous people here (they number around 40,000 in a total population approaching nearly 500,000) and severely
stretched the capacity of the island to sustain even the settlers.
Sahara Sunderbans Development, West Bengal
The Sundarbans has been enlisted as an International Natural Heritage/Biosphere Reserve site. It provides a unique
haven for the diminishing breed of Royal Bengal Tigers, crocodiles, estuarine dolphins and innumerable varieties of birds
and animals. It spawns a rich harvest of crustacea (shrimps, crabs, etc.) and fish including the hilsa. The natural
resources are the main economic resources as well.
Premature reclamation close to Kolkata and unsustainable farming have made considerable inroads into the system. Yet,
these deltaic areas do continue to help in maintaining a semblance of ecological balance in the land, water and biotic
system in this vital region. Not only is the delta an extremely dynamic buffer zone between the river basin and the sea, but
also provides the possibility of retrieving new land from the depths of the sea. Naturally, for such a massive river basin,
any major human interference would affect not only the tidal and salinity balance, but also play havoc with the hydrology
of the entire basin. Lately, a new threat to the Sunderbans has surfaced in the form of the Sahara Sunderbans EcoTourism Project.
In January 2004, the West Bengal government and the Sahara Group signed an agreement for a Rs.500 crore project to
develop the Sunderbans as a global destination for eco-tourism. The first phase is to be completed in about one year and
a half. The State will make available about 750 acres of land on the islands of the Lower Long Sand Island, Sagar,
Frasergunj, L- Plot, Jharkhali and Kaikhali for a paltry sum of only Rs. 20 crores. The project plans to have 250 sq. km. of
floating hubs and platforms, eco-parks, shopping centres, playgrounds, helipad, 75% floating accommodation, state-ofthe-art communication systems, health care facilities, possibilities of coastal cruise, wildlife & adventure tourism, seminar
and conference facilities, etc.
Ecotourism is defined by the IUCN (World Conservation Union) as “Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to
relatively undisturbed areas, in order to enjoy, study and appreciate nature (and any other accompanying cultural features
- both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socioeconomic involvement of local population.” By this yardstick, the project is nothing but ‘eco-destructive tourism’.
The entire Sunderbans, including all the project sites, have been notified as a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) I region. It
is an acknowledgment of the fact that this is an extremely sensitive zone and any activity has to be initiated with care and
concern. None of this is, however, evident in any of the project documents of the promoters. There are a number of laws
that the project and government authorities are either ignorant of, or are deliberately violating. The project proposes a
number of activities that are strictly prohibited in CRZ I areas. These include dredging in creeks and water bodies and the
use of coastal salt marsh for developmental activities during the construction phase. Nothing is known of the plans for the
disposal of waste and sewage; neither of those to deal with the inevitable oil, grease and other forms of pollution resulting
from the operation of the boats, barges and floatels.
There is serious concern being expressed about availability of fresh water, which is already a problem in this marshy and
saline region. Presently available only at a depth of about 1,000 feet, many are worried that the huge requirements of the
project will only worsen the situation for the environment in general and the local populace in particular. One such large
requirement is for a mini golf course at L-Plot.
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
13 of 17
Certain critical parts of land and forests to be developed for the project are already designated as reserve forests under
the Indian Forest Act (IFA) — 1927, and will need special permission for dereservation. These have not been sought.
Further all the project sites, with the exception of Gangasagar, are within a distance of 10 km from the boundaries of the
Lothian and the Sajnekhali wildlife sanctuaries or a wildlife corridor. The Indian Board for Wildlife, which is chaired by the
Prime Minister, had taken a decision in January 2002 that all areas within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks and
sanctuaries and the wildlife corridors would be declared as eco-sensitive under the Environment (Protection) Act — 1986.
In another significant move, it has apparently been decided that fishermen will not be allowed to fish in areas where
Sahara has its project or the creeks where their boats will ply. Presumably, they want their "virgin" beaches and islands.
It's also become clear that this project will not only harm the environment but also adversely affect the local population, b y
direct displacement and by the restrictions on their fishing activities. Also no other tourism operator will be allowed into the
Sunderbans.
Apart from the cultural disruption of the local communities caused by the project, poaching and pollution shall play havoc
with the wildlife. The Taj Bengal Hotel near the Alipur zoo has decimated the migratory bird population; the massive effect
of such exotic development in the Sundarbans shall rob the world of a unique and irreplaceable heritage.
In addition, there have been serious problems with the EIA and public hearing process that is mandated for projects of this
kind. Only a Rapid EIA has been prepared and this is nowhere sufficient or comprehensive enough to deal with a project
this size. Further, the West Bengal Coastal Zone Management Authority has not yet prepared the Area Specific
Management Plan and Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Sunderbans, as mandated by the MoEF.
Unless these are available, there is no basis for such a project being cleared. Yet, the State Government's expert
committee on EIAs is said to have cleared the project. Bonani Kakkar of PUBLIC has also pointed out serious problems
with the public hearing process after participating in the hearing on January 28, 2004, at Ramganga in the 24 Parganas
district. While the project is multi-locational, the public hearing was held in only one place. While two small advertisements
were placed in newspapers, the fact is that the print medium is hardly read in these areas.
Meanwhile, the West Bengal Government has received another proposal from Taj Hotels, Resorts and Palaces for
converting the forest area in the Sunderbans into an African-type safari park. The package would include jungle drives,
nature walks, and game sightings from vantage points. The park’s infrastructure would be developed to suit the
requirements of international tourists.
Downfall of Ganga Action Plan
Not much needs to be said about the pollution of river Ganga by rapid industrial growth, human habitation, and religious
practices along its banks. Today, the river is a pool of floating carcasses, factory effluents, toxic chemicals, sewage, and
plastic.
In 1986, late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi launched an ambitious Rs.1700 crore Ganga Action Plan (GAP) to clean up the
river. The Rs.900 crore Phase I, launched in 1986, aimed to set up sewage treatment plants, electric crematoria and
toilets in over 20 cities of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. Phase II was officially launched in June 1993 to
concentrate on cleaning the tributaries of the Ganga such as the Yamuna, Gomti, and the Damodar that empty into the
Ganga.
The Ganga Action Plan has not achieved any success despite expenditure of large sums of money. Even after almost two
decades after its launch, Phase I is incomplete. Phase II, due to end in December 2001, is not complete either.
The GAP has been a colossal failure, and many argue that the river is more polluted now than it was in 1985. While it
envisaged cleaning the river naturally by releasing 30,000 turtles to feed on the organic waste and corpses, it did not
account for poachers nor take any steps to involve the police or forest guards. While much of the framework established
by the GAP is useful, there has been little follow-through or enforcement, and solutions have been partially implemented.
For example, tanneries along parts of the river have built treatment plants to purify the waste products, but electrical
power is not consistently available. Lack of proper maintenance of and shortage of power supply to the industrial effluent
and domestic sewage has led to these treatment plants lying idle and operating ineffectively. As a result, even now, nine
crore litres of industrial pollutants and the filth of about 20 cities empty directly into Ganga. The faecal contamination in
Varanasi's waters is so high as to register a coliform count 800,000 times the safe normal limit for drinking. The increase
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
14 of 17
in the silt on the riverbed has lowered the river depth resulting in the rainwater is causing damage to the coastal towns
and villages.
The Government continues to claim that its schemes under the Ganga Action Plan have been successful, and
consequently, corrective action is lacking, despite scientific data making evident the failure of the plan. Despite the failure
of GAP, there is no dearth of ambitions plans along similar lines. The central government National River Action Plan has
taken it upon itself to clean twelve major river basins. Given the track record on the Ganga Action Plan, it is anybody’s
guess where these will lead do.
Hazardous substances transportation guidelines
In September 1994, on NH 23, a tanker carrying 13.07 tons of LPG overturned while taking a sharp turn. The pin of the
trailer broke and the tanker overturned resulting in leakage. Luckily, the driver remained unhurt and tried to stop the
leakage by putting a wet blanket over the leakage. However, the traffic continued and no attempt was made to stop the
traffic. After a short while, the tanker caught fire and everybody ran away. The National Park authorities that are situated
close by passed on information to the local civic authorities. The information was also relayed to the oil companies that
loaded the tanker. After the information was received, the control room dispatched company fire tenders and rescue crew
to the scene of emergency. It took more than 2 hours and 45 minutes for the rescue crew to reach the place. After
reaching the site, it was found that whole tanker was under fire including nearby vegetation. The fire was particularly
severe near the safety valve. The local fire brigade refused to go anywhere near citing lack of equipment as the cause.
Finally, after 6 hours, the fire was put out by hitting out with a water jet.
The tremendous increase in the transportation of hazardous substances in the past few years due to industrial
development has resulted in numerous such road mishaps. The events that generally lead to a major disaster are
container failures or impacts due to accidents. Some recent incidents have shown that these incidents can escalate into
major environmental disasters.
In India, no attempt is made to assess risk of various modes of transport and their impact on population, environment etc.
Many developed countries quantify the transportation risk, to identify the sources of greater risk and examine specific
issues in risk reduction such as effectiveness of revised regulations. Many laws have been enacted in India in the last ten
years to regulate this particular sector, and perceptible change was observed only in transportation of petroleum products.
A lot still needs to be done in the area of transportation of chemicals like acids, alkalis, and hazardous wastes. With new
laws being enacted in the field of hazardous waste management, the whole issue needs to be reviewed.
In India, the decision to transport a chemical by a particular mode as well as route selection is made entirely on
commercial grounds. The transporter is paid on the basis of shortest route between two points. Availability of en-route
facilities for managing emergencies, avoiding population centers and tunnels when there are alternatives, etc. are not
considered while deciding on a particular route. The last route survey for transporting LPG was done in 1990.
In India presently transportation of hazardous chemicals is regulated through following statutes: Petroleum Rules -1976,
Gas cylinder Rules -1981, Static and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules-1981, Explosive Rules -1983, Motor
Vehicle Act and Rules as applicable to transportation of hazardous chemicals.(Amended in 1994), and Rule 7 of
Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989 for transportation of hazardous wastes. Many of these
statutes require that the containers carrying these chemicals display labels indicating the hazards, tremcards indicating
the action to be taken by the vehicle crew in case of emergency en route, etc. The recent amendments made to the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules stipulate responsibilities on consignor, consignee, and transporter. It also stipulates the
syllabi for driver training and other details. However, the compliance with these regulations is far from satisfactory. In
case of hazardous waste transportation, the MoEF has made no consistent efforts to ensure the implementation of
HWM&H Rules, 1989.
Municipal Solid Waste: A burning Issue
With the country’s population over the one billion mark, and with ongoing unplanned development and urbanisation, the
quantity of waste generated continues to increase. An effective, efficient, and sustainable waste management system is
still rare in India. Poor services are often a result of lack of inter-sectoral coordination coupled with employees who have a
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
15 of 17
very low output. This is just one of the problems municipalities face. There is no Indian policy document that examines
waste as part of a cycle of production-consumption-recovery, or perceives waste through a prism of overall sustainability.
This is the case despite a well drawn out effort as a consequence of a Public Interest Litigation drawing the attention of
the Supreme Court that forced the Government to take active cognisance of the situation by accepting a Court
commissioner study.
The new Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules 2000, which came into effect from January 2004, as a consequence
of this PIL efforts, fails to perceive waste management within a cyclical process. Waste management is still a linear
system of collection and disposal, creating health and environmental hazards. Increasing urban migration and a high
density of population will make waste management a difficult issue to handle in the near future, if a new paradigm for
approaching it is not created. There is, however, an inadequate understanding of the problem, both of infrastructure
requirements as well as its social dimensions.
At the national policy level, the Municipal Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules 2000 legislated by the MoEF
details the practices to be followed by the various municipalities for managing urban waste. However, the response has
been segmented and far from satisfactory. First, it does not address mechanisms that will be needed for promoting
recycling, or waste minimisation. Secondly, there is no provision for any public participation, despite the fact that the Rules
have been an outcome of public pressure and the immense work done by non-government organisations and community
groups in this area. The present rules and regulations are inadequate both in terms of assessing environmental impact of
waste and its economic and social implications.
At another level, the trend in cities in developing countries is to shift the traditional municipal responsibility to private
actors without considering the host of existing stakeholders. Excessive reliance is placed on technologies many of which
are expensive with high environmental and economic ramifications.
Biomedical wastes:
Some public interest litigations (PILs) filed in different states in India put constant pressure on the government for a law
governing healthcare waste management (HCWM). MoEF had issued a first draft notification on 24th April 1995 regarding
HCWM. Due to criticism and feedback from healthcare institutions, two amendments were issued on March 6, 2000 and
June 2, 2000. In the year 2003, guidelines for common biomedical waste treatment facility (CBWTF) and guidelines for
design and construction of biomedical waste incinerator, a controversial technology, were also published by Central
Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) national legislations. The guidelines establish legal controls and permit the national
agency responsible for the implementation.
The law has to be complemented by a policy document and technical guidelines. There should be a clear description of
responsibilities before the law is enacted. It is the responsibility of the government to create a framework for the safe
management of healthcare wastes and to ensure that healthcare facility managers take their share of responsibility to
manage wastes safely.
Hazardous Waste Management (HWM)
The Supreme Court commissioned High Power Committee (HPC) Report has expressed its critical and dissatisfactory
opinion on the present status of HWM in India. The MoEF has made no concerted effort which necessarily had to be of a
promotional, educational and coordinating nature to ensure implementation of Hazardous Waste Management and
Handling Rules, 1989. As per the HPC Report, till 1997, there was not a single secured landfill facility available in the
country to dispose off the hazardous waste. As of today, very few centralized hazardous waste disposal facilities exist in
India and most of them are in Gujarat.
Endosulfan: The virulent killer in God’s Own country, Kerala
India is the largest global producer of endosulfan, an organochlorine pesticide. The pesticide industry in India is the fourth
largest in the world. Endosulfan is banned in 10 countries worldwide including Colombia, Germany, Sweden, Norway,
Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. Its use is severely restricted in another 22 countries. The Plantation
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
16 of 17
Corporation of Kerala, run by the state government, has been spraying endosulfan through helicopters for more than two
decades over its cashew plantations on the hills in and around Padre to counter the tea mosquito pest.
In January 2001, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) collected 25 samples of blood, fat, milk, vegetables,
cashews, leaves, soil and water from Padre village in the highly affected Kasargod district. The CSE report stated that all
of the samples contained perilously high levels of endosulfan -- the first evidence that endosulfan was in the environment
and in human beings. Cerebral palsy, retardation of mental and/or physical growth, epilepsy and congenital anomalies like
stag horn limbs have become very common among children. Cases of cancer of the liver and blood; infertility and
undescended testes among men; miscarriages and hormonal irregularities among women; skin disorders were common
and a few asthma cases have also been found. Psychiatric problems and suicidal tendencies have also been rising. Some
of these ailments are largely restricted to people below 20 years. An international team of experts visited affected villages
in Kasargod district. After reviewing reports, conducting interviews, and examining victims, the team concluded that the
health problems experienced by villagers in the district are caused by endosulfan.
The district administration had been ignoring citizen petitions and memorandums (since 1994) to ban endosulphan use.
Due to intense media and public pressure, and years of effort by villagers and advocacy groups, the Kerala Government
banned endosulphan in 2001.
The National Human Rights Commission asked government agencies, including the Indian Council of Medical Research
(ICMR), to act. A study by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) got underway. The Government of Kerala
also constituted an Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr A. Achhuthan to enquire into the press report
regarding ill effects in Padre village of Kasargod district in Kerala allegedly caused by aerial spraying of endosulfan. The
Expert Committee suggested that aerial spraying of Endosulfan should be prohibited for all crops in Kerala and that Peria
Division of Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited (PCK) should observe a pesticide holiday for period of five years and
should undertake only ground based spraying of endosulfan as per practices recommended by the Kerala Agricultural
University. The Kerala Government accepted these recommendations and both the Union and State Governments
banned aerial spraying of endosulphan.
The Rs.4100 crore pesticide lobby played an offensive role to fight for its existence. It set forth to slander CSE’s study and
prove that endosulfan was safe and harmless. The campaign strategy had three components: disinformation,
manufacturing data, and influencing government agencies to lift the ban. PCK commissioned its own study, and not
surprisingly, the results completely absolved endosulfan. Activists opposing endosulfan were threatened with legal action.
It also aggressively lobbied the Government and its officials to lift the ban.
In 2002, Kerala Government lifted the ban on endosulphan. But, under immense pressure, the ban was reinstated. In
December 2003, the Parliament was informed (in response to a question) that the Government of India also constituted
an Expert committee in 2002 that found that no link could be established between the use of endosulfan in PCK
Plantations and health problems reported in Padre village. Accordingly, GoI decided that the use of endosulfan be
continued as per provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968. But, CSE has analyzed and found that this Expert committee
decided to trust the results of PCK-commissioned study (which itself suppressed truth) and ignored the results of the
NIOH study. And, so, the game of deceit continues.
Today, India uses up to ten million litres of endosulfan making it the largest endosulfan user in the world. Kasaragod is
just one example of the tragedy India is heading toward. In the time that the Kerala Government has banned the use of
endosulfan (due to media and public pressure), birds are back, there are butterflies flitting around, micro organisms are
alive in the eco-system and nature is seemingly bouncing back. In Muliyar Village (where the Panchayat banned the use
and sale of endosulfan and other pesticides), they have found that in the two years of the ban, their cashew yield has
increased.
With regard to a final decision on banning the pesticide, the Union and state governments are passing the buck to each
other. A long-term resolution of the issue appears elusive. But, for now, Kerala’s agriculture minister has banned the use
of endosulfan in PCK's plantations.
Some Indian Environmental Issues – TAI Case Studies
An ESG Collation – October 2004
17 of 17