His report was indeed the first such comprehensive study of the process in India, and as far as Professor Gadgil knew – and he does know- anywhere in the world.
He has praised the Goa government, its role and all stake holders for participating in the process of gathering information for the report which he duly placed before the Goa government. Today, the Professor is a disappointed man and has said that the government has suppressed his report, which essentially concluded that all environmental parameters were not observed in the process of doing the EIA for mining leases.
The significance of Professor Gadgil’s remark is extremely important in the context of the fresh round of Environmental Clearances that all 27 mining leases have to obtain when the lease renewals take place. The EC’s were suspended by the then Union Environment Minister Jayanthi Nattarajan in September 2010. In the new environment of control and awareness post the Shah Commission report and the Supreme Court judgment, the process of granting EC’s will be under scrutiny. That is why this report of Professor Gadgil needs to be in the public domain as the go to document for future Environment Clearances
Gadgil’s project involved assessing the quality of the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), compliance with Environment Clearance (EC) conditions and the adequacy of the Environmental Management Plans (EMP) with respect to mines in operation in Goa. It was called the EIA-EC-EMP process.
At the end of the project Professor Gadgil had at his disposal a complete set of EIA-EC-EMPs for 79 mines then in operation. Professor Gadgil, at the time of his submission had said “The study was conducted in an open, transparent and participatory manner involving a wide range of stakeholders and extensive field visits”.
One of the most important findings of the report was that the project proponents were getting clearances with very little stakeholder participation leading to serious deficiencies in the EIAs with what he termed “deliberate misrepresentations of facts relating to vital issues such as water and biodiversity resources and livelihood support systems of local people in practically every single exercise”.
In giving an example he had said that the EIA for mines in adjoining village Rivona claimed that agriculture is dependent on monsoons with irrigation available for only one percent of the land. When local communities requested the Agriculture Department to independently verify the facts, it was found that Rivona had an extensive irrigated agriculture and horticulture with its own perennial irrigation systems based on over 30 natural springs, all of which would be affected by mining.
Giving another example he said that the Kushavati Bachao Andolan pointed out that the Hunantlo Dongar manganese mine near Columba village lies on the bank of a major rivulet of river Kushavati. This was left out of the final EIA. He then mentioned that in 95 out of 96 cases, public hearings were held in district or taluka headquarters rather than at the project site where it is mandated
He gave another example of a mine in Pissurlem village which punctured the aquifer and drained away all ground water. Yet, the water collected in the mine pit was pumped out and deliberately let out to the river instead of irrigating their dried-up farms.
For a transparent and people centric Environment Impact Assessment, it should be ensured that fresh EIA’s are held for all cases. There should be no getting out of that. And most importantly, this Gadgil report on the EIA-EC-EMP process followed should be accepted, tabled in the assembly and made a benchmark for all EC clearances.
