Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Mandapaka Narsinga Rao vs Union of India and others.

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Aoû 30, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
National Environment Appellate Authority
Siège de la cour
New Delhi
Juge
Kala, C.
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Énergie, Environnement gén., Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Préservation de l'écosystème Forêt récréative Protection de l'habitat Espèces végétales protégées Espèces animales protégées Espèces halieutiques protégées Aire protégée Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie Développement durable Protection des espèces Eau à usage récréatif
Résumé
The Bhavanapadu thermal power project promoted by East Coast Energy Private Ltd (ECEPL) in this ecologically fragile region had been challenged before the National Environment Appellate Authority, (NEAA). it has been acknowledged by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests that the area where the plant is located is an "ecological entity of incomparable value requiring conservation and protection". A position they themselves contradicted subsequently. This site is also just five kilometres from Telineelapuram pelicanry, a globally recognised area for avifauna, and a nesting and foraging ground for large-sized migratory birds. The Naupada swamp also supports both fishing and agriculture-related livelihoods in the area. However, despite initial recommendations for a change in plant location, the site remained the same when the environmental approval was granted on 11 February 2009. Compounding this, the company had begun draining water from the Naupada swamps and initiated excavation work before the approval had been granted - in clear violation of law. The report of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), however, gave a lease of life to the illegal construction; it recommended mitigation measures to address the damage in set of secondary recommendations, although its primary finding was that ECEPL should not have undertaken. In his judgment, the Judge notes that before arriving at the decision on the case, he had ascertained whether or not the proposed project is located in or affecting an important bird area, and whether it posed a threat to the ecoystem as well as livelihoods of locals. The order then refers to the series of assessments of the Wildlife Insittute of India (WII), the Bombay Natural History Society and the report of the NBWL all of which pointed ot the ecological fragility of the area. It remarks that MoEF had not kept its environment clearance in abeyance although the common overall thrust of all the expert reports was not in favour of the project. The MoEF has placed before the NEAA a detailed set of reasons for the same. Their primary justification was based on the fact that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had responded saying that proposed site of the Bhavanapadu plant does not fall within the Naupada swamps as per the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) of the state. Responses from other state government departments had indicated that the area was not conducive habitat for both resident and migratory large birds. It is these and other set of reasons that led the MoEF to conclude that the approval may be granted to the proposed thermal power plant. But after a site visit, NEAA concluded that various reports pertaining to the project, including those from MoEF were incorrect, and that contrary to the basis on which environment clearance was granted by MoEF, the area was indeed a wetland and marshy area and acknowledged that the company is to blame for destroying it. It agreed with experts, that the "elevation of the site through excavation in several places by the project proponent, after the grant of EC nearly a year ago, has caused irreversible changes in the character of the wetland". However, in view of the non-reversibility of some of the ecological impacts which had already occured due to the earth work, the NEAA is of the opinion that the project authorities will have to demonstrate utmost seriousness for reducing their ecological footprints by ensuring strong and effective measures to reduce and remedy the impacts that could have been prevented had the plant not been located here for development, but stopping the project would result in a setback to the welfare activities already set into motion by the company. The NEAA order seeks to balance development with conservation by making all efforts to contain the impact on ecology and on the people of the area at the same time maximising th efruits of development to the affected villages and the project be allowed to continue.
Texte intégral
COU-156243.pdf
Site web
www.elaw.org