Expose UPA’s Attempts to ‘Greenwash’ its Pro-corporate Policies!
In the midst of massive protests, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has paved the way for implementation of India’s largest foreign direct investment (FDI) – POSCO’s Rs 52,000 crore integrated steel and mining project in Jagatsinghpur, Odisha. Ever since 2005 when the idea of the POSCO project was first mooted, the huge social and environmental implications of this project have repeatedly been highlighted, and consequently there is massive opposition to the loss of land and livelihoods. In order to justify this disastrous decision to grant permission to POSCO, the self-proclaimed ‘Green Crusader’ Jairam Ramesh has claimed that this clearance is ‘conditional’ – 28 conditions have apparently been imposed on the steel plant, and 32 on POSCO’s proposed private port.
A careful reading however reveals that the conditions themselves do not correct or undo any of the grave violations pointed out by MoEF’s own inquiry committee. In its October 2010 report, the Meena Gupta Committee of the MoEF had shown how the original conditions imposed by the Ministry in its 2007 and 2009 clearances were not being fulfilled. It had recommended scrapping both the environment and forest clearance and asking POSCO to reapply.
And now the latest verdict of the MoEF on giving ‘conditional’ clearance’ to POSCO reveals several loopholes. For instance, the verdict asks POSCO to “ensure no industrial activity be carried out in the CRZ area.” For this to happen, POSCO will have to redesign and probably relocate its entire plant and port, which is currently within the CRZ zone. The verdict has not specified whether this is a precondition for work to begin. If it is not, the condition itself is meaningless and perpetuates the violations of the CRZ Act. Similarly, responding to concerns that the proposed project will reduce drinking water supply to Cuttack and surrounding areas, the verdict asks POSCO to “voluntarily sacrifice” water. What if POSCO chooses not to comply? How will MoEF ensure water supply? No answers. On the issue of violations of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), the MoEF verdict say that it wants ‘categorical assurance’ from the Odisha government that no violation has taken place – the very same Odisha government which has been proved time and again by various MoEF-appointed committees to have aided and abetted in gross violations of the FRA!
Overall, the MoEF has skirted several contentious issues by passing the buck on to either POSCO or the Odisha government to address these issues. Whether it is ensuring drinking water, or compensation to the 20,000 fishermen likely to be affected by the project, or impact on marine ecology and the endangered olive ridley population, or violations of the Forests Rights Act, the MoEF has placed the onus of responsibility on POSCO and the state government. This is laughable, since both have repeatedly shown that they have scant regard for implementing the law of the land or for the social and environmental implications of the project.
The least the MoEF could have done was to revoke the 2007 environment clearance and ask POSCO to reapply. This was not done, and the clear message that has gone out is that the UPA and the MoEF has given a green signal to this project, and hence to industrial investment. If indeed the MoEF and the UPA are interested in ensuring that these conditions are met, then what stops them from demanding scrapping of the current MoU when so many issues remain unresolved?
The strategy is clear, and is also an old one. The so-called ‘conditions’ provide the ‘feel-good’ factor – they will remain on paper, rarely to be imposed and implemented. These conditions merely provide a much-needed façade of social and environmental responsibility, while the state machinery works overtime to ensure the implementation of disastrous projects. We have not forgotten how the height of the dam constructed under the Sardar Sarovar Project was allowed to be increased, in a clear violation of the Supreme Court directives that no new construction could take place unless rehabilitation of the displaced people first takes place.
The challenge for the people’s movement in the days to come is to expose the variety of tactics employed by governments to promote corporations, and to confront and defeat the nexus between corporate robbers and ruling governments which support them.
aisa march on……….
Well, look at it from a publisher’s POV. You want a book that a large nmuber of readers will buy, and hence have to give them some titillation like most pup fiction does. Many folk like a book that makes no demands on their intellect. Else you want a book that is certain to win a prize and then people will rush to buy it because having it visible on your workdesk or coffee table shows folk around you that you are brighter than them and read serious’ literature. If you can satisfy neither extreme, you are left high and dry.Writers have always been free to self-publish and market their books. It’s because the job is so hard is why publishers are needed, and then you have to dance to their tune.