Fishermen’s problem along Mundra coast stems from wider issues of industrialization: World Bank
The Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group, responsible for addressing complaints from people affected by IFC supported projects, has ruled that the threat to the livelihoods to the local communities, especially fishermen along the Mundra coast in Kutch district, “stems from sources beyond Tata Power in the wider industrialization of the coast”, and thus cannot be resolved by the Tata Power, which is building a 4,000 MW plant, alone. “A larger effort involving other industry players along the Mundra coast and the state government could help generate a sustainable solution to securing the fishing communities’ livelihoods”, the CAO report, dated February 9, 2012, has said.
While suggesting that the CAO’s dispute resolution team will “appraise whether an audit of IFC‘s handling of its investment in the project is warranted”, the “Ombudsman Assessment Report Regarding Community and Civil Society Concerns in Relation to IFC‘s Tata Ultra Mega Project” says, even the complainants, Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS) have agreed that a “cumulative impact assessment” of all related projects – Tata Power, the Mundra Port, which is owned and operated by the neighboring Adani plant, and the dedicated railway line are associated facilities of the project — should have been carried out for the project. “The company too has stated that it is the responsibility of the Mundra Port Special Economic Zone — as owner of the port and railway line — to obtain the relevant clearances for these facilities”, it adds.
The report says, “The complaint raises a number of concerns about the project‘s environmental and social impact on the local community of migratory fisher folk. The fishing community lives and fishes on the Tragadi bander (fishing harbor) that is located directly outside the project for eight to nine months out of the year during the fishing season. The complaint further questions the quality of the environmental and social impact assessment and the company‘s community consultation activities, the project‘s adherence to IFC‘s Performance Standards, as well as its compliance with national legislation. Finally, the fisherfolk believe that the project, when seen in the context of industrial development more generally along the Mundra coast, ultimately threatens to displace their activities entirely, thus fundamentally threatening their livelihoods.”
A CAO team visited the site three times during August 15-19, October 8 and October 17-23, 2011, holding meetings with the complainants and other fisher folk at the site and in the vicinity, as well as with company representatives. An additional meeting was held with two MASS representatives in Delhi on September 1, 2011. “As their fishing harbors, or bandars, are increasingly surrounded by these projects, the fisher folk express concern about a number of ways in which they fear their livelihoods are threatened, including that they may not be allowed back on a bandar from one year to the next; that industrialization will impact the quality and quantity of their catch; and that their health may be affected negatively by industrial pollution”, the report says, listing the main concerns by MASS, which were:
(1) Access to harbor: Fisher folk expressed that a key point of contention is that construction of the project outflow channel has cut off the access road for the Pagadias (foot fishermen). Pagadias walk from the village (Tragadi primarily) to the coast to fish and return with their find. The company has constructed a road around the outflow channel, which is an additional 3.8 kilometers (km) walk for the Pagadias (or 7.6 km total per outing).
(2) Marine life and impact on catch: There is widespread concern among the communities regarding the plant‘s open cooling system, and the fact that the water coming out of the plant‘s outfall channel (after flowing through the plant) will be of an elevated temperature and therefore impact marine life, and cause a long term decline in the fish population.
(3) Fly ash: The communities discussed their concern of coal ash flying out of the plant‘s conveyer belts when coal is being moved from the port to the plant. The conveyer belt is shared with the neighboring Adani power plant. They argue that ash is already flying from the Adani plant, and that this affects dry fish (fish that is laid or hung out to dry in the sun) and even some agricultural produce—especially certain fruits specific to Kutch.
The report recommends that a “dispute resolution process is voluntary both for affected communities and for the company”. It added, “It is CAO‘s view that a collaborative process may have been helpful in this case to address many of the concerns of the fisher folk. Specifically, the company and the users of the Tragari bandar could work together to identify who among the bandar‘s users may not have been adequately compensated and may require additional assistance or compensation. Open dialogue between the company and the fisher folk could equally help enhance benefits, such as provision of health services or schooling for the fishing communities. Dispute resolution tools ranging from information sharing, to a review of company documentation by mutually agreed independent experts, to participatory monitoring are the types of approaches that can be used to assist parties to address such concerns jointly.”
