Arun Jaitley, then Finance Minister, announced the project while presenting the budget 2014-15. He stated that it was intended to increase the Ganga’s vessel capacity to at least 1,500 tons. The NGT, and the MoEF&CC are the two main institutions charged with protecting the country’s environment. They have been debating since 2015 whether the project needs or warrants environmental clearance.
At this time, inland waterways have not been added to the list of projects that need prior environmental clearance. However, dredging is an important activity in the development of inland watersways and requires environmental clearance.
According to the National Waterways Act 2016, India has 111 declared National Waterways. These waterways are located on all major rivers, creeks, backwaters, and estuaries. Many similar projects, including the Loktak Inland Waterways Improvement Project (Manipur), are currently in progress. NGT noted that such projects are becoming more common in the country. This raises the question of whether an EIA Notification of 2006 legally binding impact assessment is necessary. The Ganga waterway case is a precedent for all inland-waterways projects.
Experts recommend that the EIA Notification (2006) be amended to include inland waters projects in order to obtain an environmental clearance. This is both in the interest of the environment and so that the waterways are economically and socially sustainable.
Delayed and again
The EIA Notification 2006 schedule, as amended from occasion to occasion, lists the types of activities and projects that require prior environmental clearance. An EIA report must be prepared using environmental baseline data that has been collected over a time period and public hearings if applicable.
The Expert Appraisal committee at the level of the state or Union government then evaluates it. Based on the recommendation of its Expert Appraisal Committee the MoEF&CC grants clearance. However, there are specific conditions depending on the type and size of project. The compliance report is then submitted to the MoEF&CC by the project proponent. This report can be accessed online.
While expeditious disposition of cases is its stated short, the NGT continues to hear Bharat Jhunwala, others vs Inland Waterways Authority of India and others, the case that was filed seeking environmental clearance for JMVP. In 2018, the NGT ordered that the MoEF&CC create a committee to address the issue.
The petitioners had the right to approach the Supreme Court to view the MoEF&CC report, and to file objections. The case was then referred to the NGT, which on January 10, 2020 directed the MoEF&CC, to submit a report within three months in consultation with ecologists.
The case has been placed on the Principal Bench’s cause list 16 times since then, and has been delayed 14 times. The NGT reminded the MoEF&CC twice to submit the report, an order that the ministry has repeatedly ignored. The hearing was last listed on April 12, 2022. It was canceled because the ministry had not submitted its report. The next hearing will be held on May 4, 2022.
Environmental impact of Jal Marg VIkas Project
The JMVP, or the project for Capacity Augmentation of National Waterway-1 on the Ganga-Bhagirathi-Hooghly river systems, spans the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal. The Inland Waterways Authority of India under the Ministry of Shipping is developing the project at a cost of Rs 4,633.81 million. The World Bank provides technical and financial support.
In 1986, the entire stretch of river systems from Allahabad to Haldia was designated National Waterway -1. The JMVP aims to increase the freight-carrying capability and facilitate movement for vessels with 1,500+ tonne capacity along a 1,620km stretch from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh to Haldia, West Bengal.
The project aims to develop the fairway, which is the navigation channel, to provide 1.5 – 3 metres of depth and 30-45 metres of bottom width clearance. This riverine system is considered one of the most sedimentary in the world. Because of this, fairways must be regularly dredged of mud. Dredging and related work can have a negative impact on the riverine environment as well as the livelihoods of those who live along the rivers.
The project also requires the construction terminals, jetties and navigation locks, as well as freight villages, vessel maintenance facilities, and other infrastructure.
Nachiket Kelkar (an ecologist at the Wildlife Conservation Trust, and a member the IUCN Cetacean Special Group) stated that “there is” water pollution due to the release of heavy metals like arsenic and bio-contaminants from dredging, the risks from vessel accidents in high traffic areas leading the to spillage of hazardous materials from vessels, the impact of underwater noise on fish habitats, mollusc and crustacean breeding zones, and fishing areas.
The National Green Tribunal Case
Bharat Jhunjhunwala filed a petition in the NGT in November 2015 raising serious questions about the construction of the National Waterway-1 (on the Ganga) without obtaining environmental clearance.
The applicants relied on entry 7(e) in the Schedule to EIA Notification 2006 as amended December 2009. This covers ports, harbours, breakwaters, and dredging activities that require prior environmental clearance. Further, the EIA Notification 2006 states that maintenance dredging can only be exempted if an Environment Management Plan has been prepared and prior environmental clearance is obtained.
After almost three years’ of discussion, NGT ordered the MoEF&CC, on November 1, 2018, examine whether environmental clearance is required for JMVP. In consultation with experts and to also examine whether Environmental Impact Assessments must be completed in projects relating inland waterways. This exercise was completed by the MoEF&CC in three weeks.
The NGT disposed of the case immediately without waiting for the required report. The applicants were not given the opportunity to view the report and file any objections. The applicants approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 22 on February 22, 2019. 1411 of 2019 (Bharat Jhunjhunwala, & Ors. V/s Inland Waterways Authority of India & Ors.
The apex court allowed the applicants to approach NGT with their objections about the MoEF&CC’s report. The case was remanded to the tribunal. A year later, on January 10, 2019, the NGT ordered the MoEF&CC once again to consult experts, and submit a report no later than April 27, 2020. This was in line with the earlier order. The NGT reminded the ministry twice to submit its report after two years.
The September 2, 2021 order states that the NGT was notified that the issue of a required EIA was within the Ministry of Jal Shakti, and not the MoEF&CC. This is after six years of debate. However, there is no official communication or affidavit to prove that the EIA requirement does not fall under the MoEF&CC’s purview. The order does not specify who informed the NGT that the issue was under the Ministry of Jal Shakti. The September 2 virtual hearing did not include the admission of counsel for the applicants.
While the NGT continues to stall, the MoEF&CC and the MoEF&CC remain in limbo. However, the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWA) has announced that the project will be completed in December 2023. Already in 2018, and 2019 respectively, Prime Minister NarendraModi inaugurated multimodal terminals at Varanasi (UP) and Sahibganj (Jharkhand), on the Ganga. M/S Adani Port & SEZ were awarded three contracts by the inland waterways authority in 2018 and 2019. These contracts were for dredging the Farakka Barh stretch of Ganga to maintain the navigation channel’s water depth.
IndiaSpend was told by Bharat Jhunjhunwala (the lead petitioner in this case and a former professor of IIM Bengaluru) that “By not deliberating on this matter the decision has been made by default.” “Even with the interventions of the Supreme Court, it is still a matter of applicability to EC. [environmental clearance]Despite the fact that the project is almost complete, some questions remain unanswered.
The MoE’s stalling strategies
The MoEF&CC was ambiguous over the past seven year regarding the requirement of an environment clearance for the inland waterways projects.
Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, RTI applicant, obtained the ministry’s office memorandum OM dated March 6, 2017. It clarifies that JMVP requires environmental clearance as per the EIA Notification (2006), as amended. It clarifies that the maintenance and dredging components cannot be exempted of clearance.
The MoEF&CC established an expert committee that approved the March 2017 OM by the ministry. The Committee affirmed that all inland waterways projects must be cleared by the environment and recommended that the EIA Notification be amended to include waterways projects as Category A projects, with Central appraisal.
This is because all inland waterways projects are classified as Category B2 projects in the Ministry’s EIA Draft 2020. If this classification is retained, inland waters projects will not require an Environment Impact Assessment.
Again via RTI, the Manthan Adhyayan Kendra obtained documents showing that the MoEF&CC expert committee reiterated its earlier position that the JMVP included maintenance dredging and, therefore, necessitates environmental clearance.
However, the MoEF&CC voted in opposition to its own expert panel and issued an OM dated December 21st 2017, which granted exemption from maintenance dredging for all inland waters projects.
The minutes from the October 24, 2017 MoEF&CC Meeting are very informative. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and Shipping and Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation presided over the meeting. It was confirmed that no environmental clearance was required for inland waterways project; however, the MoEF&CC’s Secretary stated that the “project should apply to Environment Clearance.” The application can also be processed on a speedy basis.
The NGT had in November 2018 directed the MoEF&CC that it submit its report on expert opinion within three working days. Four months later, the MoEF&CC didn’t submit any evidence that it had consulted expert opinion, contrary to what it was instructed to. Instead, it submitted the minutes for the May 18, 2017 expert panel meeting. However, the ministry had already nullified all of the committee’s recommendations by issuing an OM on December 21, 2017 granting exemption from maintenance dredging. Similar to the NGT order from January 2020, which required the ministry to consult experts in order to submit a report, it has not done so for more than two years.
We reached out to the MoEF&CC to obtain their comments on the status and recommendations of the committee of experts that was established to review the NGT order. We will update the story once we receive their response.
Not prepared an environmental impact report as per protocol
Inland Waterways Authority of India prepared the Environment Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan for the main components of this project in accordance with the World Bank Environmental Safeguard Guidelines.
These studies and reports are not included in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, which means that the ministry’s expert appraisal committee did not review the report and has not established specific terms of reference to conduct the impact assessment.
The standard protocol states that the appraisal committee reviews the environmental impact report and holds public hearings before recommending environmental clearance with certain conditions attached. These conditions are legally binding; they are monitored by the MoEF&CC; and in the case of non-compliance, even an ordinary citizen can approach the judiciary for recourse.
This can lead to results being presented and action plans not being developed with the required rigour. Concerns about conflict of interest arise from the fact that these mitigation plans will be supervised by the inland waters authority, which is also implementing agency.
The inland waterways authority has posted on its website a report titled “Study on the effect of navigational activities upon Dolphin in the National Waterway -1.” According to the IUCN Red List, the Gangetic River Dolphin is listed as an endangered species and is protected by Schedule-I of 1972’s Wildlife (Protection) Act.
The Ganga Waterway crosses the Vikramshila Gangetic Dairy Sanctuary in Bihar. According to the report, vessel movement and sound from dredging activities could have an impact on the River Ganga’s aquatic species. It may also have short-term and long-term effects on the riverine ecology.
The report includes an action plan to protect aquatic wildlife. The September 2020 report does not mention the peer-reviewed study by Mayukh Dey and colleagues (2019) that examines the effects of underwater noise exposure on Gangetic Dolphins in Ganga river.
Mayukh Dey (Research Affiliate, National Conservation Foundation) said that the inland waterways authority study about the impact on Gangetic Dolphins lacks scientific credibility. He says that the study does not contain the majority of current literature about dolphins. Some of the references in this report also refer to the impact of noise on marine mammals. The Gangetic dolphin is functionally blind, but the marine dolphin can see. However, the Gangetic dolphin relies on echolocation to navigate, hunt and communicate. The sounds of machinery in action, such as dredging and motors of river barsges, can seriously impair the river dolphin’s ability to perform their essential functions.
Kelkar, Wildlife Conservation Trust co-author and one of Dey’s coauthors, stated that the study was a missed opportunity because no experimental studies were done to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures. This study, if it had been done, would have shown the way to how waterways can be managed effectively to reduce their impact on biodiversity.
In 2014, the MoEF&CC ordered the inland waters authority to commission studies from the Central Inland Fisheries Research Institutes (CIFRI) about the impact of coal transport along a stretch of Ganga Waterway in West Bengal. The study was to examine the Ganga Waterway’s route from Sagar through Farakka. The study showed that barges moved quickly and that fish assemblage structures changed rapidly. It was also found that the full impact could not be assessed for a longer period of times.
CIFRI’s study reveals the negative social impacts on fisherpeople, who are the most dependent on the riverine ecosystem. According to the study, “The fisherman rely largely on the fish catch for daily livelihoods.” “The fishing operations are directly affected when there is disruption from barge movement. Around 38% reported fishing time loss. The average loss per fisherman was Rs. The incidence of barge(s), movement on lower, middle and higher stretches was 0.75, 4.35, 17.63, and 17.63, respectively. This is the Sagar Farakka stretch, which is only 560km of the total 1,620km Ganga Waterway stretch.
Pradeep Chatterjee, co-founder of the National Platform for Small Scale Fishworkers in India (Inland), stated that the installation of the National Waterway-1 as well as part of the Indo-Bangladesh Protocol route which is National Waterway-97 has sounded death to Ganga’s fish resources and fishing communities dependent on it.
The CIFRI study found that the “marginal effect on aquatic flora and fauna, fishing, and livelihood of fishermen can be mitigated by the “plans” that are “easily implemented”.
The report found that coal transported in moist conditions and covered does not have a significant impact on river ecology. It also saves diesel, which reduces the carbon footprint compared to surface transport.
Chatterjee refers to the fly-ash-barge capsizes that took place on the Ganga Waterway and Indo-Bangladesh Protocol routes (NW-97) in 2020, 2021, and 2021 to highlight that “increased pollution from oil, coal and flow ash spillage combined, with turbulity and disturbances caused by continuous movement ships, barges and dredging are driving away whatever little fish stock is left.” Chatterjee stated that small-scale fishers are suffering tremendous economic losses as ships and barges regularly run over their nets and boats, resulting in huge economic loss.
Ganga waterway nearing completion, dangerous precedent for future projects
According to the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, 13 of 26 National Waterways are currently undergoing development activities, including the JMVP, according to the Rajya Sabha’s latest status report on March 29, 2020. These 13 projects include National Waterways of Goa (Mandovi, Zuari, and Cumberjua), stretches of National Waterway-4, Andhra Pradesh, and National Waterway-5, Odisha. However, due to the JMVP exemptions, the process has been stalled.
This would mean that the project is almost complete without any serious environmental impacts studies being done. This would mean that other projects are currently underway in other riverine areas without the required impact studies. The end result would be detrimental to the environment and the fish and wildlife that live in it, including the Gangetic dolphin, India’s National Aquatic Animal. There would also be serious economic losses for fishers and communities living near these rivers.
