The silence of the North Goa Collectorate office on the allegations made that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the new Greenfield airport at Mopa is illegal as the terms of reference for it had expired indicates that there is some truth in what the anti-Mopa airport activists are saying. If the government had nothing to hide, the collectorate office should have been quick to denounce the accusations leveled by the activists instead of saying that the matter was with the State Pollution Control Board and the Directorate of Civil Aviation.
It is the North Goa collector who presided over the public hearing on the EIA just a month ago. The government – its departments and its arms – have to be aware of every rule that affects any aspect of this project and can’t be washing their hands off issues. Mopa airport is a major project being undertaken in the State, perhaps even the largest ever. So, can the fact that the collectorate has preferred to not say a word on the accusations be taken as a sign that they are aware that the EIA should not have been conducted and public hearing should not have taken place?
The Federation of Rainbow Warriors (FRW), which is an umbrella organization for the Mopa Pidit Xetkari Samiti and Goans for Dabolim Only, produced photocopies of documents to prove their charges.
Look at the dates: The terms of reference were granted in June 2011 for a period of two years, they were granted an extension for a year, ending May 31, 2014. The EIA was completed in October 2014, over four months after the terms of reference had expired. The hearing on the EIA was conducted on February 1, 2015, a good eight months after the expiry of the terms of reference.
The fact is that the government was aware that the terms of reference had expired, otherwise why would the Director of Mopa Airport apply to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for an extension of the validity of the terms of reference? But, what is important to note is that he did so after the EIA was produced and the public hearing on it held.
There is further evidence that the government was aware that the terms of reference had expired. The chairman of the Goa State Pollution Control Board says that the fact that the public hearing of the EIA was held after the expiry of the terms of reference period has been brought to the notice of MoEF. So why was the public hearing allowed to be held without getting the terms of reference extended? A further question is whether the terms of reference can be extended.
In an office memorandum sent to state pollution control boards in August last year, the MoEF states that the terms of references for an EIA will be valid for two years with a maximum extension of one year. It states that extension beyond three years “shall not be considered” and that the project proponent will have to start the process anew and obtain fresh terms of reference for an EIA.
If the MoEF stands by this memorandum then there is no way in which the ministry can grant the State government an extension of the terms of reference that were issued in June 2011. It should not. It is almost four years since the terms of reference were granted and much has changed since those terms of reference were given. If the MoEF does accept Goa’s request to grant an extension of the terms of reference, it would be a travesty as there is already widespread opposition to this new airport and this would only further fuel the agitation.
The best, and only, solution now would be scrapping the existing EIA and report of the public hearing and going in for a new set of terms of reference and a new EIA followed by a public hearing. That would clear the air of the allegations that the government is pushing through a major project by bending the rules. A new EIA would doubtlessly delay the project, but allowing the Mopa airport by bending certain rules would only darken the cloud that now hovers over the EIA, opening up the government to litigation should any person or organisation challenge this in a court of law.
If the Mopa airport has to indeed come up, then there cannot be allowed even a shred of any illegality to be associated with its development.
