SAMATA, AN environmental protection group, warned that the environment impact assessment (EIA) of the proposed integrated alumini-um complex at Rachapalli, Koduru and Bh-eemboinapalem villages of Makavarapalem mandal in Visakhapatnam district would simply washed over this section and the information provided was very deceptive.

Submitting objections and complaints on the proposed public hearing by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control board, Samata’s executive director, Ravi Rebbapragada demanded that this public hearing be dropped as the EIA contains misleading and factual errors and did not represent the actual situation on ground.

In a letter to the chairman of the Public Hearing Committee, district collector, Sanjay Kumar on May 30, suggested that let the project proponent come back with a proper EIA and then hold the public hearing.

According to him, the EIA merely mentioned the social impacts in two places. In the beginning of the document it said that the plan falls within the jurisdiction of three villages – Rachapalli, Bheemboinapalem and G Koduru, whereas in the field, notices were served to families in about 13 villages.

He alleged that there were no details provided about the number of farmers and families that will be directly and indirectly affected either through loss of land, houses, livelihoods or any other form. There is no clear information about the present land use of the families that will be affected.

Stating that the EIA merely provided information for one village Kothuru, where it stated that 163 families will be relocated, he said that in reality there is no village with the name Kothuru in Makavaripalem mandal and in the beginning of the EIA, G Koduru village is mentioned. Hence, he said there is factual discrepancies in the information provided.

There is no clear rehabilitation plan and EIA merely gave a list of facilities ‘roads, houses, drinking water, schools, etc’, which is not a concrete plan, even for the one village it mentioned. There is also no proper information about the social background of affected families, their current incomes and how the project will improve or affect the economic status of the affected communities or families, he added.

However, the EIA, while taking claim to the indirect benefits, did not mention or take responsibility for the indirect impacts that are likely to happen (given the status of extractive industry, refineries, plants in other parts of the country and world). The health impacts that are scientifically proved as a result of refineries and smelters to the local populations have not even been mentioned in this document.

Also, the social hazards due to the emergence of township, floating populations and increase in external population like prevalence of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking of women and adolescent girls, increase in liquor shops and thereby alcoholism, increase in violence, crime, atrocities against local populations particularly women and youth have not been addressed.

Employment

The EIA stated that a survey by them showed that people have asked for jobs when interviewed. However, it mentioned that there will be 1,000 jobs provided (none of these to local communities) and between 2,000 and 4,000 local people will be provided with daily wage work (discrepancy in these figures in document).

"So how will the local population have economic benefits as given in the flow chart Annexure, with mere monetary compensation and temporary wage labour?" Ravi asked. The company can take credit for indirect benefits, it should also take responsibility for indirect losses – whether income, health, cultural, social or otherwise. The EIA did not mention any of these.

In terms of compensation, he said that while monetary compensation is said to be provided by the company, other rehabilitation packages like providing milch cattle is said to be provided by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) from government schemes. Why should public expenditure be provided for a private company’s profits?

Water

The EIA stated that water would be provided from Godavari project of Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation (GVMC). There is an existing shortage and in fact crisis of water supply from Godavari project. How will GVMC meet the shortage for public consumption, if this water is diverted for the project?

Also, there is discrepancy in information regarding water usage. In a letter to an RTI application filed by us, the information given is that 10 MGD of water would be drawn from Yeleru canal, whereas the EIA stated that water would be drawn from the Godavari project. How does the secretary, commerce and industries have authority to grant 10 MGD of water from Godavari project, whereas the relevant authority is the GVMC?

The EIA mentioned only one stream but the local situation shows that there are several small streams in the area. There is no explanation on the likely impact on these water bodies. It is feared that the red mud pond will destroy these water bodies. In the outer ring road project of Hyderabad, the Supreme Court had objected to such interference on water bodies.

This is a similar situation with more likely impacts of contamination and water pollution, especially from the smelter, which will emit flouride gases and flouride particles that will affect the health of the people.

EIA mentioned that there would be a coal based 650 MW power plant that will be set up for the smelter. However, the EIA did not give details of land required for this purpose, impact assessment, for setting up this plant. Hence the EIA is incomplete.

Bauxite Deposits in Fifth Schedule area

EIA mentioned that raw materials will be provided by Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC) from Jerrella for the refinery. This is preempting the process. But there is no clearance to APMDC for extraction of bauxite from Jerella, no public hearing has taken place for the extraction, the Gram Sabhas in Jerella as per the Panchayats Extension to the Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act have not given their consent or passed resolutions for extraction of bauxite.

"How is a refinery first being constructed without formal procedures for supply of ore being fulfilled?" Ravi asked. In the event that ore cannot be supplied from Jerella, there is no mention of alternate plan for sourcing raw materials. Hence, refinery is being constructed in a haste with huge public expenditure and ecological costs without assured raw materials supply.

Corporate social responsibility

Ravi alleged that corporate social responsibility (CSR) given in the EIA was very superficial and has no concrete commitment. It reflects the lack of seriousness and provides vague promises of promoting indirect employment generation for youths and generating good governance.

It is not taking the responsibility for the losses due to the project on local communities and environment, the serious crisis of water that will take place due to diversion of water from GVMC’s supply to the region.

The public hearing was proposed even after strong protests, rallies, objections raised from local communities who have been agitating for months against the project. They have been forced to take compensation by use of police forces.

There are many aberrations in revenue records as the actual people in occupation are different from the original assignees, who no longer are the owners of the lands. However, government has given compensation to these families and hence considers that people have accepted the compensation package voluntarily. Women in large numbers have been protesting and have given several objections to officials and political representatives.