Please sign the online petitions below to express your solidarity and support for the actions proposed by the Environment Ministry in the show cause notices
Petition for action against Mundra Port and SEZ
Petition for action against OPG Power Project

* If you face any difficulty in signing the petitions, please mail us on mass.kutch@gmail.com

Monday, July 13, 2015

Press Statement: ADB Action Plan on Tata Mundra rejected: Communities Demand Robust Remedial Plan


Press Statement: 13.7.2015

ADB Action Plan on Tata Mundra rejected: Communities Demand Robust Remedial Plan

Kutch, Gujarat: Communities affected by the Tata Mundra (Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd) coal power plant in Kutch rejected the action plan developed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), calling it “non-serious, lacks genuineness, commitment or imagination.”

ADB developed the remedial action plan in response to its accountability mechanism, Compliance Review Panel (CRP) finding serious violations of ADB’s policies while approving the loan to Tata Mundra.

In its Report, published in April 2015, CRP found several areas of noncompliance with ADB operational policies and procedures. Some of them were:
·         failure to conduct adequate and comprehensive consultations with fisherfolk during initial project design phase and consider their views in assessing project impacts.
·         noncompliance with ADB operational policies and procedures for thermal and chemical pollution of wastewater discharged through its outfall channel leading to harm people fishing on foot.
·         noncompliance with air pollution standards, and unless continued violations of prescribed air standards were not checked or brought into compliance, further harm would result.
·         noncompliance with ADB operational procedures and resulting harm by not surveying and compensating people impacted by longer access routes to their traditional fishing grounds as plant premises now stood enclosed.

In a written response, Machimar Adhikaar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS - Association for the Struggle for Fishworkers’ Rights), the local community organisation of fishworkers, and farmers who complained to CRP, questioned the process of developing the action plan. The ADB team which visited the project site for preparing the action plan never met or consulted the people. They termed the consultation process proposed in the action plan a “hogwash”.

Responding to the proposal that National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) would undertake studies to assess the impacts of thermal discharge, citing the observations of CRP on erroneous Rapid Marine Environment Impact Assessment which NIO did in 2007 and 2009, MASS said “To depend on NIO’s findings again to develop a mitigation plan would be a non-starter.” MASS further said that NIO   “…lacks credibility, acceptance and whose initial reports have misled ADB is wrongly assessing the impacts.”

Reacting strongly against Livelihood Improvement Plan in the action plan, restricted only for people who had practiced foot fishing General Secretary of MASS Dr. Bharat Patel asked “Why is ADB trying to discriminate the affected population, when CRP in its report has been eloquent on the loss of livelihood for the fisherfolk?

MASS expressed serious concern on the $1.2 mn (INR 7 crore) budget it has allocated for the Action Plan. They said 57% of the budget is set aside for studies and even when there is no plans for the Livelihood Improvement Plan, nor an idea about the number of people who require alternative livelihood, the action plan predetermined $3,00,000 for it. MASS said that by doing that “the management is making its insensitive attitude amply clear.”

Expressing extreme anguish at this action plan, Gajendrasinh Bhimaji, Sarpanch of Navinal Panchayat and one of the complainants said, “We were hopeful when CRP confirmed the concerns that we raised and expected the ADB to develop an action plan based on the findings of CRP. We are utterly disappointed. With the project fully commissioned, impacts on fisheries and horticulture becoming serious, we are staring at an unsure future.”

MASS in its statement said, “From a position of self-sufficient communities we are made to seek charity from the company and ADB now. Our dignity is ripped off. Whatever is prepared in the name of an Action Plan is insult to injury. We do not have any option but to reject this Action Plan. Unless we see an action plan which addresses the fundamental findings of CRP, where we are a part of the planning, implementation and monitoring, we will continue our struggle for justice.”

They urged the ADB to “to engage in a process, in consultation with the affected people, to develop an action plan based on the findings of CRP and with a genuine intend to mitigate the impacts resulted from their investment in Tata Mundra project.”

Contact: Bharat Patel - +91-9426469803

MASS’ Response to ADB’s Action Plan On Tata Mundra


MASS’ Response to ADB’s Action Plan On Tata Mundra
The much awaited Action Plan of Asian Development Bank (ADB) on Tata Mundra is finally out! The Action Plan was looked forward to by a large number of people, negatively affected by the Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project (Tata Mundra), since it was preceded by a Report by the Compliance Review Panel (CRP), ADB’s accountability mechanism. 

In its Report, published in April 2015, CRP found several areas of noncompliance with ADB operational policies and procedures. Some of them were:
·         failure to conduct adequate and comprehensive consultations with fisherfolk during initial project design phase and consider their views in assessing project impacts. ·         noncompliance with ADB operational policies and procedures for thermal and chemical pollution of wastewater discharged through its outfall channel leading to harm people fishing on foot. ·         noncompliance with air pollution standards, and unless continued violations of prescribed air standards were not checked or brought into compliance, further harm would result.
·         noncompliance with ADB operational procedures and resulting harm by not surveying and compensating people impacted by longer access routes to their traditional fishing grounds as plant premises now stood enclosed.

What the people were expecting was an Action Plan based on these findings. Instead, what was presented to them was a “Studies Plan”, as the CRP calls it, plagued with too little “Action” and cherry-picking the findings.

As suggested by the management, MASS had prepared a detailed ‘People’s Action Plan’ based on each findings of CRP (see appended). Nearly none of them are addressed in the Action Plan.

Machimar Adhikaar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS - Association for the Struggle for Fishworkers’ Rights) finds the current Action Plan problematic for the following reasons:

Erroneous Process

In May 2015, when MASS and other organisations met with the management (Todd C. Freeland DG PSOD, Michael Barrow DDG PSOD, Don Purka, Director) we were told that a team from ADB have already made a field visit in preparation to developing an Action Plan. It shocked us since there was no information about this visit, or the said team met anybody who filed the complaint to CRP, or the communities which the complainants represented in their complaint. If the Action Plan is prepared in consultation only with the company and not with the people, whose complaint led to the CRP report, that clearly shows that ADB is not interested in any course correction. It proves that ABD not holding adequate consultation with people initially was intentional. And it continue with the intent.

Plans that are hardly plans!

Consultation
If the intention of holding consultation with all stakeholders is genuine, especially after the project is completed and is made a fait accompli on the people, it should be to assess the spread and depth of damages caused and plan a robust mitigation plan. Without a real assessment how can one develop a budget? Or, whether putting up a budget is to put a limit to the extent of planning ADB could do? We fear that this consultation process will be yet another hogwash and that is clear right from the beginning of Action Plan preparation.

Studies by NIO
The Marine Environmental Impact Assessment (MEIA) and the Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment (RMEIA) for the project was carried out by National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) in 2007 and 2009. A few of their conclusions led to catastrophic results. Consider this:

“Evidently, no large scale of commercial fishing operations prevail off Tunda-Vandh and surrounding region except for minor based hand-net and gill-net operations.” (MEIA, Pg 52)

“Since there are no commercial fishing operations off Tunda-Vandh except shore based local fishing, the impact on fisheries would be minor and non-consequential” (MEIA, Pg 87)

It would be worthwhile to consider CRP’s observations on NIO’s reports:

“The presence of fisherfolk who practice traditional fishing has also been noted in the RMEIA. The report states that there are no commercial fishing operations in Kotdi Creek except shore based local fishing. The RMEIA further refers to some limited fishing in traditional boats. Internal ADB commenters in the preparation phase of the SEIA also pointed to the likelihood that the outfall channel might impact on people fishing in the area.

It is thus puzzling that the SEIA states: “Despite the fishing potential of the gulf, there are no local fishing activities in the coastal waters fronting the project area. This could be because most villagers are vegetarians and the presence of a vast intertidal mudflat. The nearest small fishing community is located outside the project areas at about 2.8 km from Modwa creek, where the spent cooling water will be discharged.” (emphasis added) The same statement can be found in the Resettlement Planning Document (para. 18): “Although the fishing potential of the Gulf of Kutch is significant, there are no local fishing activities in the coastal waters directly fronting the project area which has vast intertidal mudflats, The nearest small fishing community is at Kotdi Creek bank located outside the project area …”(emphasis added). The CRP does not agree with the statement that no fishing takes place in the coastal waters fronting the project area. ADB staff explained to the CRP that this statement was made, as the RMEIA states that there is no large scale commercial fishing in the shallow waters in front of the plant. But ADB policies and procedures are not only directed towards large scale operators. It is the poor and vulnerable who in particular need to be consulted and for whom negative project impacts can seriously affect their livelihood and fisherfolk who fish in front of the Tata Mundra plant are mostly poor.” (CRP Report Pg 18-19)

“The CRP is of the view that the RMEIA and MEIA reports present a somewhat incomplete picture.” (About thermal pollution from water discharged from the outfall channel) (CRP Report Pg 25)

To depend on NIO’s findings again to develop a mitigation plan would be a non-starter. NIO was again engaged by the company in 2013 after the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) of International Finance Corporation (IFC), a co-financier of the project, came heavily down upon the IFC for its blatant violation of its own policies. IFC adopted whatever the company said they are doing as their own Action Plan. ADB, in an effort to dodge responsibility and fool people, is just piggybacking on something which lacks credibility, acceptance and whose initial reports have misled ADB is wrongly assessing the impacts.

Temperature Monitoring
We welcome the automatic temperature monitoring device at the outflow channel to be made accessible to the public. However, CRP found non-compliance of ADB policies vis-à-vis thermal discharge. How does the monitoring alone address this non-compliance? If ADB is genuine to address this non-compliance, it has to ask the company to change the open cooling system of outfall channel to a closed cooling system.

Livelihood Improvement Plan
Why is Livelihood Improvement Plan restricted only for people who had practiced foot fishing? CRP in its report has been eloquent on the loss of livelihood for the fisherfolk. Why discriminate the affected population? Or, does ADB consider that the thermal pollution the outfall channel is causing can be contained in a limited area?

Any livelihood improvement plan should consider all affected communities; wide consultations with them should be fundamental to developing a plan and plans should be made public. CRP identified affected communities can only be a beginning and not the end. CRP talks about impacts of coal dust, fly ash and air pollution. There is no data available on the spread of its impacts.

What one is witnessing here is that instead of ADB trying to make an effort to assess the actual impacts and develop an Action Plan, it is trying to narrow down its ambit and discriminate among the affected communities.

Missing the woods for the trees

May be in this case it should be said ‘missing the sea for the water’!

By not taking appropriate actions on the CRP report, apart from undermining the accountability mechanism of ADB, it is also sending a stern message to all communities who will ever consider of seeking redressal from CRP that ADB do not care about their miseries, or CRP’s findings, it will defend its client, and at best, they will hogwash the communities and public with some studies and ornamental actions, and continue with its business.

We are disappointed with the Board which approved this Action Plan, which is non-serious, lacks genuineness, commitment or imagination, and is a joke on the affected communities.

ADB has missed another opportunity to look at the real impacts and develop a remedial action plan. Instead of realising its vision of an Asia free from poverty, with its attitude towards the affected communities in Tata Mundra ADB is making the self-sufficient communities poor.

Budget

The lack of commitment is reflected also in the budget allocation. 57% of the budget is going for studies (for discredited agencies like NIO and other consultants). With allocating only $300,000 for livelihood improvement plan, without even knowing the actual number of people who needs alternative livelihood and without even knowing what the plans are, the management is making its insensitive attitude amply clear.

Key missed opportunities

Who implements the plans and monitors the progress of all these proposed actions? The same company and the same M&E consultants, whose failure hitherto has led to such a situation? There is no attempt from the management to learn from the past mistakes. Unless the affected communities are part of the implementing and monitoring process, however good the plans look on paper (in this case, it looks a non-starter even on paper!), it will never be implemented on the ground and the ones who has suffered so far will continue to do so.

A genuine consultation process with all stakeholders is lacking in the Action Plan. CRP has listed policy violations on consulting affected communities at various stages of impact assessment studies. Why is the management still not trying to consult people, to understand the spread and depth of impacts?

Having repeatedly established by agencies like CAO and CRP that the Social and Environmental Impact Assessment is erroneous, why is there no attempt to do a fresh SEIA? Without which how can anyone ever draw a remedial plan?

Why nothing is proposed on health facilities, despite CRP reporting about air pollution, dust and ash contamination? What about the dust and ash deposited on grazing land, which is consumed by the livestock? ADB do not want to address the genuine impacts and is only interested in some publicity stunt?

Who in ADB is accountable for this situation? Shouldn’t the accountability for the mess that is left in Tata Mundra stop at somebody’s doorstep? Or does ADB want to continue to incentivise through perks and promotions the ones who took wrong decisions, ignored the required studies, failed in upholding ADB’s policies, put people’s livelihood and health at stake and caused irreversible damage to environment?

Role of CRP

We want to acknowledge here the positive role played by CRP. We appreciate CRP being proactive in ensuring that the management is complied with the policies and the impacts on the communities are minimal.

Conclusion

Our worst fears have come true!

Our livelihood is stolen. From a position of self-sufficient communities we are made to seek charity from the company and ADB now. Our dignity is ripped off. Whatever is prepared in the name of an Action Plan is insult to injury. We do not have any option but to reject this Action Plan. Unless we see an action plan which addresses the fundamental findings of CRP, where we are a part of the planning, implementation and monitoring, we will continue our struggle for justice.

We urge ADB to engage in a process, in consultation with the affected people, to develop an action plan based on the findings of CRP and with a genuine intend to mitigate the impacts resulted from their investment in Tata Mundra project.

Machimar Adhikaar Sangharsh Sangathan
July 2015