[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DAM-L LS: ESG PR on Plagiarized EIA for Dandeli Dam (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----
From owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net Tue Sep 12 14:54:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net>
Received: from DaVinci.NetVista.net (mjdomo@mail.netvista.net [206.170.46.10])
by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA03903
for <dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Received: [(from mjdomo@localhost)
by DaVinci.NetVista.net (8.10.0/8.8.8) id e8CIVmm07867
for irn-narmada-list; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net)]
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200009121831.e8CIVmm07867@DaVinci.NetVista.net>
subject: LS: ESG PR on Plagiarized EIA for Dandeli Dam
Sender: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Precedence: bulk
Leo F. Saldanha/Bhargavi S. Rao Pandurang Hegde/Balachandra Hegde
Environment Support Group Parisara Samrakshana Kendra
Bangalore Sirsi
September 2000
PRESS RELEASE
Despite Ernst & Young Plagiarised EIA on Dandeli Dam, Government not
overruling Public Hearing held
"I'm neither denying nor acknowledging these allegations" is how Mr. Kashi
Nath Memani, the Ernst & Young Director in New Delhi defended his company
last week when the undersigned exposed the wholly fraudulent report that
was prepared by the firm for the Dandeli Hydel Dam project. Mr. Memani
further stated thus: "We are investigating how this happened. The report
was written and submitted in haste. We will be preparing another report
and submitting it afresh." He had also stated that "the report was
prepared by one employee and was not checked by a supervisor" in an attempt
to suggest that his company is not at fault, but an individual alone and
proceeded to claim lost ethical ground by sharing that the individual had
resigned owning moral responsibility.
Mr. Memani's statements are contradicted by his Environmental Division
Chief Mr. Sudipto Das, for Das had stated in the Indian Express dated 27
August 2000, that the mistake only was of "not attributing the source of
the data". This in a desperate attempt to suggest that were this done,
then every other act of plagiarising, including showing the geographical
location and ecological information of Dandeli as being in the place of
Tattihalla Augmentation Scheme, over 100 kms. away, is justifiable.
These muddled reactions of Ernst & Young apart, the more shocking fact is
that the Government has not taken any action on this worst case of fraud in
environmental decision making history in India, despite bringing this to
their notice through detailed representations. On the contrary, the
decision to hold the Public Hearing on 21 August 2000 on the Dam project,
on the basis of Ernst & Young's fraud report, was a decision that was
entirely in contradiction to set norms of according clearances, as certain
orders of the State reveal.
For in an order No. FEE 142 ECO 2000 (P) dated July 5th 2000, the Dept. of
Forest, Ecology and Environment has clearly instructed the project
developer, M/s Murdeshwar Power Corporation Ltd., that an Environment
Impact Assessment and Public Hearing on the project was required per the
Central EIA Notification. Even this direction seems to have preceded the
10 July 2000 Order No. EoE 96 NCI 2000 of the Karnataka Government which
officially cleared the project with the rider that failure to achieve all
clearances within 90 days from that date would abrogate the clearance.
When a full environmental clearance was mandated, to have issued such an
order would imply that the Government of Karnataka, in its enthusiasm to
seek investments by way of "Global Investors Meet", was effectively
endorsing the violation of the environmental clearance process in India for
the following reasons:
1. As the project was cleared on July 10th, there could be no EIA before
that date. Ernst & Young EIA is dated June 2000.
2. Even if the work on the EIA was to begin on that very day, considering
that the proposed dam is in the Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary area, special
clearances under the Wildlife Protection Act would have to be secured for
the study from the Chief Wildlife Warden.
3. From this point on, even for the scientifically ludicrous, but legally
mandated, "Rapid Environment Impact Assessment" (REIA) study to be
completed, would have taken a period of 3 months, and for the Comprehensive
EIA a full year.
4. Further, if the REIA was to be the basis of holding Environmental Public
Hearings, an abhorrent short-cut employed in clearance to aid
"development", it could only have been held after the study was complete,
and thereafter a 30 day public notice issued by Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board during which time the document would have to be in public view.
On the contrary, the Hearing notice was issued on 21 July 2000, less than a
fortnight after the project officially existed on record, i.e. July 10,
2000. Contrast this with Ernst & Young's claim that the study was
completed during June 2000, the very month the Chief Minister principally
accorded the project clearance as part of the Global Investors Meet held,
ironically, on World Environment Day, June 5, 2000.
We had exposed the act of plagiarisation by Ernst & Young a week before the
Public Hearing date of 21 August 2000. The least that the Government
should have done was to investigate our charges, and cancel the hearings.
Instead the Hearing was held and in which two officials from Ernst & Young
defended the study, even as the original Tattihalla and the plagiarised
Dandeli report were produced, terming the latter to have "some
irregularities" that "would be corrected".
Mr. Memani's confession has come too late, and only when the muck really
hit them. His late reaction nevertheless suggests that were the fraud not
to have been uncovered, Ernst & Young would have been happier for it. Mr.
Sudipto Das' statement to Indian Express and the statements of Ernst &
Young officials during the Public Hearing only confirm this strategy.
Thus, the entire Ernst & Young system acted to cover up, and not just one
individual "in haste" as suggested.
Meanwhile, despite the wide attention that the issue has gained, the Deputy
Commissioner of Uttara Kannada district, where the dam is proposed, has
proceeded to finalise the proceedings of the Environmental Public Hearing
held and submit it to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for grant
of a No Objection Certificate to the project.
To uphold the law, establish high standards for environmental clearances
and save valuable forests we reassert our earlier demands that:
1. The Environmental Public Hearing held on 21 August 2000 on the basis of
the plagiarised EIA must be declared null and void.
2. A Judicial Enquiry ordered into the incident to pin responsibility
within the Government for allowing this fraud.
3. Dis-empanel Ernst & Young as EIA Consultant in India.
We hope that India's Environment and Forests Minister, Mr. T. R. Baalu, who
is arriving in Bangalore today to address a meeting tomorrow on Afforesting
India by involving people, will take the desired steps to save Dandeli's
forests from Ernst & Young's attempt to deny it even a honest obituary,
that EIAs often are.
Leo F. Saldanha/Bhargavi S. Rao Pandurang
Hegde/Balachandra Hegde
Environment Support Group Parisara
Samrakshana Kendra
Bangalore Sirsi
· Both documents mentioned in the Release are with us and could be faxed on
request.
· The plagiarised EIA of Ernst & Young for Dandeli compared with the
original Tattihalla EIA of ICSEM are online at http://web.estart.com/~esg/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WE HAVE MOVED : OUR NEW ADDRESS
Environment Support Group (R)
S-3, Rajashree Apartments
18/57, 1st Main Road
S. R. K. Gardens
Jayanagar
Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore 560 041. INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-6341977
Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP)
Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@netvista.net
with no subject and the following text in the body of the message
"unsubscribe irn-narmada".
----- End of forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----