the process followed to clear a proposed expansion of Utkal Alumina International Limited's (uail's) bauxite mining and alumina refinery project in Rayagada, Orissa, has raised disturbing questions about the legality of the project, the quality of the environmental impact assessments (eias) and the involvement of local communities in the decision-making process. Affected villagers are protesting what they see as a denial of their rights through state-sponsored circumvention of laws.
uail has put in an application to expand the capacity of its refinery plant from 1 million tonnes per annum to 3 million tonnes, and increase output from its bauxite mines from 3 million tonnes to 8.5 million tonnes, even though the project has barely taken off. That makes for a fresh set of legal complications.Despite efforts by the company, a joint venture of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (part of the Aditya Birla group) and the Canada-based Aluminium Company of Canada (alcan), to win over the local people, its plans are facing strong resistance.
Anger was visible at the public hearing for the project held on October 17, 2006, by the Orissa State Pollution Control Board (ospcb) in Tikri, one of the villages affected by the project. People from nearly half of the 24 project-affected villages lashed out at company officials for reneging on promises.
Company officials are aware of the popular discontent, having dealt with opposition while acquiring land and getting consent for the project, ever since uail's inception in 1992. Some villagers say this is the reason the company did its best to stop the more vocal and persistent of the protesters from attending the public hearing, aided by the police. They also claim that the choice of location for the hearing -- Tikri -- is significant. Tikri is about 10 km away from the plant site, compared to Kucheipadar or Bagrijhola, which are barely a couple of kilometres away and are at the heart of the protests. These villages are not far from Maikanch, where three people were killed a few years ago while protesting. Apparently, uail wanted to maintain a safe distance.
Consequently, Prakrutik Sampad Suraksha Parishad (pssp), the organisation spearheading the protests, organised a parallel meeting at Bagrijhola. Villagers from 10 of the 24 villages gathered to rail against the company. "The public hearing was organised far away from this place so that people like you do not participate and embarrass them by putting forth your demands. Only those who act as the company's agents were ferried to the public hearing," Bhagawan Majhi, pssp convener, told the villagers at the unofficial meeting.
Many people going to the parallel meeting were apparently chased away by five platoons of armed police and asked to attend the official hearing.
Even at the official hearing, anger at uail's failed promises, at its indifference to popular grievances and at the use of force to stifle protest was in evidence. Speaker after speaker warned company officials not to expect any cooperation from local people unless uail stopped using the police to harass and implicate them in false cases. "Instead of providing training to the unemployed to make them employable as promised, the company is using the police to harass people who dare raise their voice against its failure to meet popular expectations. This attitude will generate resentment," said Ranjan Kumar Kar of Bilamal village.
Kshamasagar Nayak, a resident of Nuapara, one of the affected villages, said the company cheated people by not paying compensation for land acquired. "I lost land, but I was not compensated. I was forced to move the high court. What can you expect from them?" he asked after the official meeting. Reports said just two people supported the project at the Tikri hearing.
There were several people at the parallel hearing who had received compensation for their land, but were not satisfied with either the amount or the attitude of the company officials. "My family lost roughly 3 hectares for which we were paid Rs 6.34 lakh but that is not fair. We now realise the amount should have been at least three times that sum. Besides, the company has done nothing to provide us jobs. We are shooed away when we approach them," says Nilambar Gouda of Nachiguda village.
uail is not new to controversy -- soon after the project was mooted the company began to face protests against its operations in Kashipur block. In 1995, the Union ministry of environment and forests (moef) cleared the setting up of a 1 million tonne alumina refinery plant in village Doragurha, and the mining of 3 million tonnes of bauxite in the Baphlimali hills. Prior to this clearance and following it, villagers protested.
The villagers were unhappy that the revered Baphlimali hills were to be mined. There were concerns about sedimentation in the Indravati reservoir due to the project as well. Company officials went to great lengths to allay fears of siltation. They claimed the Central Water and Power Research Station had studied the impact of mining on surface water and assured them that sedimentation would be negligible. A former chief engineer, S K Mohanty, however, said mining was bound to cause siltation.
The villagers also contended that the project was coming up on tribal land protected under the Constitution's fifth schedule. There were also allegations that land acquisition had proceeded through force and intimidation, and numerous gram sabhas had rejected the project. Resistance was met with repression--firing, murders, rapes, false cases, and harassment by police and goons hired by the company (see 'Theirs to mine?', Down to Earth, April 15, 2005 ).
A report on the uail project by the Indian People's Tribunal, an independent body that has been monitoring human rights violations and issues of environmental justice for the past decade, has also found evidence of state repression, violation of constitutional provisions and environmental norms. The report, compiled by a multi-disciplinary panel headed by Justice S N Bhargava (retd), recommended the state abandon it immediately, asking for inquiries into rights violations by security forces and ospcb's capacity to assess and prevent environmental violations.
In the midst of the protests, the construction for the project got delayed (production was originally supposed to begin in 2002). As of now, despite receiving the required clearances almost 11 years ago, neither the refinery nor the mines are operational. In fact, till 2000, no construction had started. uail officials are candid in admitting that work either on the plant site in Doragurha or the mines in Baphlimali has made little progress. According to Satyavan Samal, executive, corporate responsibility, till 2002-2003, the company was acquiring land and obtaining clearances, after which work on the plant began. Shiv Prasad, site-in-charge of Uhde India Ltd (the company contracted to build uail's plant) also admitted that work on the plant began a year-and-a-half ago.
The rules governing environment clearances for projects are very clear clearance granted to any project is valid only for five years within which the construction or operation of the project should commence. Therefore, legally, the environmental clearance for the original project has lapsed, and the company has to get fresh clearances.
Instead of doing this, uail did two illegal things it started construction for the project and applied for environmental clearance for expansion. The eia notification clearly states that expansion is only applicable to an existing operational project and not to a non-operational project. When asked why the company wanted to expand, Samal said the refinery would not be economically viable with the original specifications.
One of the demands made at the Bagrijhola meeting was that the state's chief minister, and industries and mines ministers must explain to the people how they were expected to survive after uail took away their natural resources.
But it doesn't appear that will happen in a hurry. And if the track record is anything to go by, chances of redress for beleaguered villagers appear slim.
With inputs from Radhika Krishnan and Sujit Kumar Singh