http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/pages/Details.aspx?382#Comments

Opinion & Analysis
Aug, 2013
POSCO is not a closed chapter
Send Comments<http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/pages/Details.aspx?382#Comments>
Kanchi Kohli

The battlelines have been drawn like never before. While the Odisha state
government and POSCO India Ltd have made categorical statements that they
have acquired 2,700 acres for an eight million tonnes steel project, the
agitations in Gobindpur and Dhinkia continue. Each day there are incidents
of a tussle when efforts are made to forcibly cut betel vines and dig
trenches to construct a boundary wall for the POSCO project. There are
emphatic statements that land acquisition has been  completed, all
permissions are in place and construction work will begin soon.

>From the other side, there are determined statements that indicate  that
people of the area have not given up despite an eight-year struggle. They
are ready to return to their homes and their betel vines that have been
destroyed in the tussle for power. Far away from the site of the contest,
legal battles and the opinions of experts continue to ascertain the future
of the people of Jagatsinghpur where an investment of `52,000 crore is
directed at the construction of a captive steel plant, power plant and
port.  Many livelihoods dependant on betel vine cultivation, agriculture
and fishing in the villages of Dhinkia, Gobindapur, Nuagaon, Polanga,
Bhuyanpai, Bayanal, Kandah, Noliasahi and Jatadhar will be affected by the
project.

When POSCO signed its MoU with the Odisha government way back in 2005,
their intention was to set up a 12 MTPA steel plant along with several
other components of the project. The first public hearing for the project
in April 2007 was for the construction of a 4 MTPA steel plant, a 400 MW
power plant along with a captive port. Even as permissions for the above
were granted in July and May 2007 respectively, POSCO continued to acquire
land keeping in mind its final steel plant of 12 MTPA. POSCO’s website says
they will complete the project in three phases, constructing the steel
plant to accommodate 4 MTPA capacity each time, with the first phase to be
completed by 2016-17.

With various legal issues and battles on the ground, alongside assessments
commissioned by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), POSCO
first received its environment clearance in 2007 which was reviewed through
the recommendations of the MoEF constituted Meena Gupta Committee’s reports
in 2010. A final environment clearance (issued under the Environment Impact
Assessment notification, 2006) was granted on 31 January 2011. For all
practical purposes this was to be considered the final clearance as project
activity had not begun on the proposed site. In May and June 2012, the
environment clearances granted to POSCO  in 2007 also expired given that
they were to be valid only for a period of five years.

Meanwhile both the 2011 and 2007 approvals were challenged before the
National Green Tribunal (NGT). The tribunal on 30 March 2012 issued a
strong judgment upholding that there was indeed a lacuna in the manner in
which the approval for POSCO had been granted. The tribunal said that it
was necessary to ensure optimum use of land (both forest and non-forest)
being acquired for POSCO keeping in mind a 4 MTPA plant. The company had
carried out an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) as well as the public
hearing process on the basis of this capacity. Based on this and several
other contentions a fresh review of the environment clearance was to take
place.

In mid 2012, two parallel processes began in the MoEF. The first was the
process of revalidation of the 2007 clearances and the second the setting
up of an expert committee under K.Roy Paul, Former Secretary to the
Government of India. The process of revalidation and the review by the Roy
Paul committee took place simultaneously till all the documents were placed
in a meeting of the MoEF Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) for industrial
projects in March 2013. In this meeting POSCO contented that while they are
currently pursuing the plan for a 4 MTPA plant, their final intention is to
set up a 12 MTPA plant which has not changed. At this stage the EAC sought
a revised layout design for not just a 4 MTPA plant but also an 8 MTPA one.

Many of the contentions made in the Roy Paul Committee report which was
submitted to the MoEF in October 2012 did not seem to have been discussed
by the EAC, if one is to go by the official minutes of the meeting. In fact
the Roy Paul committee had recommended that a range of studies should be
carried out by the project proponent related to shoreline changes, source
sustainability study of water requirement, marine environmental
conservation plan, the impact on the local fishing community etc, which
don’t find mention as well.

One of the foremost observations of the Roy Paul committee was that POSCO
should state unambiguously  whether the reduced project area based on land
optimisation for 4 MTPA will be able to accommodate all its future
expansion plans. The report observes that based on information provided,
the project area had been reduced to 2,700 acres by leaving out most of the
private land in Govindpur and Dhinkia villages and the portion of forest
land where betel vines were being grown by people of these villages.  This
implies that the project would be constructed around these villages
implying these lands are not to be acquired only in the current proposal.

In the subsequent meeting of the EAC of 16-17th May this year, the expert
committee recommended the revalidation of the approval for an 8 MTPA plant.
What is ironic is that the original application as well as the EIA report
of 2007 is all based on the impact assessment of a plant of 4 MTPA
capacity.  Although the final approval letter from the MoEF is yet to be
issued, it is questionable how  an approval for 8 MTPA has been recommended
by the EAC.

POSCO’s legal tussles are also back in the NGT in another form. An
application has been filed highlighting that POSCO has been carrying out
felling of trees on 1253.225 ha of forest land without the final forest
clearance order being issued by the Odisha state government. This
application builds on the reiteration and interpretation of both the Forest
Conservation Act (FCA) 1980, by the NGT Act which states that the
permission for diverting forest land  for non-forest purposes under Section
2 of the FCA by the MoEF needs to be followed by an order of the state
government as well. No  construction work on the project can begin till the
order of the state government has been issued. In POSCO’s case this has not
happened.

As per a Right to Information (RTI) response received on 13  March this
year to an application filed by Chandranath Dani, the Odisha state
government has confirmed that no such order has been issued. Based on this
and additional contentions the NGT on 28 May stayed the felling of trees by
the company. On 11 July this order was allowed to continue  till the final
hearing of the case on 12 August.

There are other legal procedures that are likely to crop up for POSCO. In
the 16th May meeting of the EAC (Industry) a recommendation has been made
that POSCO should obtain an additional CRZ clearance for discharge of
wastewater into the sea through a pipeline. This process is yet to begin.

For the people of India the eight-year-old  tryst with POSCO has many
lessons. There are international and national reports highlighting a list
of human rights and regulatory violations that the history of the project
is marred with. In Jagatsinghpur, each day is a new day for villagers who
don’t know what form of aggression will come their way and how they will be
able to withstand it.  The fact is that the people of the area have not
given up. What is clear for now is that POSCO is certainly not a closed
chapter.

-- 
Peace Is Doable

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to