How Dahanu epitomises the environment vs development debate (Part 1)


By Michelle Chawla
A fierce environmental struggle won Dahanu the status of a protected, environmentally-sensitive region in 1991. But in one fell swoop it destroyed Dahanu’s dreams of rushing into the neoliberal economy. This is the first in a series of articles, researched as part of the Infochange Media Fellowships 2008, that looks at how the environmental restrictions have impacted farmers, fisherfolk, adivasis, traders and others in Dahanu
Dahanu's communities
Whether the battle for ecological equity inevitably compromises opportunities for economic development is a question the communities of Dahanu have grappled with for over a decade. While there may be no simple answer, Dahanu's communities live in a paradoxical reality. Even as the environmental movement has sheltered them from the hazards of unregulated industrialisation, it has been unable to provide an alternative viable reality, while restricting many of the benefits of the modern economy.
Situated in the picturesque Sahyadari mountain range in western Maharastra, merely 125 km north of Mumbai, is the serene and sleepy region of Dahanu. Sandwiched between the chemical corridor of Vapi, Gujarat, to the north and the industrialised zones of Palghar-Boisar to the south, Dahanu remains one of the last surviving green zones in this region.
One amongst 15 talukas of Thane district in the Konkan division of Maharashtra, Dahanu is known as the fruit and food bowl of the region.
Home to a predominantly large adivasi community of Warlis forming 64.84% of the total population of 3,31,829 lakh (Census 2001), Dahanu also has a large fishing and farming community. With a total of 174 villages and only one municipal area, the main source of livelihood is agriculture and its allied activities.
A notification declaring it a special ecologically fragile zone by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in 1991 put Dahanu on the national map with nine other regions. The Notification restricts industrial development and disallows a change in land use for environmentally sensitive areas.
The Supreme Court, in 1996 also appointed the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) to ensure that the Notification is implemented and Dahanu remains a protected region.
This legal regime changed the options for Dahanu. Many of its dreams of rushing headlong into the neoliberal economy were thwarted, if not crushed.
There were conflicting responses from the communities of Dahanu ranging from hostility and anger to gratitude and acceptance. However, having closed many of the options for conventional development, the challenge before the environmental movement was to chart a sustainable path for growth.
History of conflict
Historically the struggle for minimum wages, land rights, and forest rights by the adivasis had dominated the discourse of the region. The period from 1945 to 1947 where the All India Kisan Sabha under the banner of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) mobilised the Warlis on the issue of land rights with the guidance of Comrades Godavari and Shyam Parulekar is well documented.
The region's struggle for control over natural resources also came to the fore with the rise of social movements such as the Bhoomi Sena and Kashtkari Sanghatana in the late-1970s that took up the battle on behalf of the adivasis.
While many of these conflicts were centred around access and rights over natural resources of land and forest, they were not necessarily articulated in the language of environmental discourse. It was only in the late-1980s, following opposition to the setting up of a thermal power plant, that an environmental campaign focused around conservation and protection emerged in Dahanu. It was led by the Dahanu Taluka Environment Welfare Association (DTEWA), with members consisting of a handful of local orchard owners who sought environmental protection of Dahanu via the courts. While they lost the struggle against the thermal power plant (a 500 MW plant was set up in 1996), they continued to work for the implementation of the Dahanu Notification.
“We believed that Dahanu's natural resources needed to be protected. We are today safe from threats like the SEZ because of the Dahanu Notification that has ensured that no dirty industry enters Dahanu,” states Kitayun Rustom, founder-member of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Welfare Association.
“In the beginning when we campaigned against a local power plant,” she continued, “we had the support of various institutions, traders, orchard owners, politicians and social movements like the Kashtkari Sanghatana. However, once the Notification was put in place and the matter went to the Supreme Court, several proposals and plans were stalled or frozen. For example, all stone quarries were shut down and no further quarrying has been permitted in Dahanu after 1991. These kinds of restrictions built up antagonism against us especially from the traders, commercial interests and political parties.”
A form of environmentalism that was not led from the ground had its limitations. Over the years, the environmental campaign divided Dahanu, with the disgruntled traders, commercial interests and politicians making every attempt to undo the laws that had caused them very clear losses.
However, the impact of environmental restrictions on the resource-dependent communities that form a majority of Dahanu are not so clearly apparent to all, and it will be interesting to study those.
Dahanu's communities
Topographically, Dahanu taluka can be divided into a 10-12 km-wide bandarpatti, the coastal belt of lowlands and flats extending from the seacoast to the railway line situated at the foot of the Sahyadri range. Thejunglepatti (forest belt) which is to the east of the railway line is a belt of approximately 20-25 km that runs parallel to the coast at a distance of 15 km from the shore.
The entire coastal belt with its rich natural resources, wetlands, mangroves and river deltas, forms a lucrative fishing area. With a coastline of 35 km, fishing is an important economic activity of the region. The Thane District Gazetteer (1982), puts Dahanu as one of the five most important fishing centres along the coast of Maharashtra with 21 fishing hamlets and seven fish landing centres.
Along with the Notification, Dahanu's coasts were classified under the most stringent clause of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification [CRZ I (i)], 1991 that did not permit any development 500 metres from the high tide line.
This led to a protective cover being cast on Dahanu’s coast, shielding it from the acquisitive reaches of commercial tourism and landgrabbers. Other than the thermal plant situated in the creek, there is no other major development activity on the coast that could directly affect fishing.
Over the last decade, construction of new projects that violate both the Notification and the CRZ have been brought before the Dahanu Authority and resolved.
One of the most significant cases was the setting up of a multi-berth industrial port by global giant Peninsular & Oriental (P&O) in the coastal village of Vadhavan in 1997. The entire coastline of Dahanu with its fishing communities was threatened by this proposal which involved the acquisition of large tracts of land.
For the first time, the environmental campaign became broadbased, with fisherfolk, local farmers, NGOs like the DTEWA, as well as the Kashtkari Sanghatana joining in the campaign against the port.
The Dahanu Authority held a series of hearings with activists, communities and the company and passed a landmark order in 1998, that the port could not be permitted in ecologically fragile Dahanu.
The environmental regime, along with civil society action, was able to prevent the setting up of a large industry that would have destroyed the coast and its communities.
However, a decade later, the residents of many fishing villages are struggling to live off the natural resources.
Ganesh Tandel, fisherman and resident of Dhakti Dahanu, a fishing village near Vadhavan states, “We were definitely relieved when the port was canceled, since we would have lost our livelihoods and been displaced. However, if you look at our community today, it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to sustain ourselves and most of the younger generation is opting for jobs outside Dahanu.”
Statistics reveal that while the fish catch was 11,503 tonnes in 1996-97, it has now increased to 19,816 tonnes (District Socio-economic survey, 2006-07, Thane), indicating that the real problem may be the changing aspirations of the youth who do not think that their traditional occupation will give them access to the consumerist economy.
The fishing community continues to benefit from the restrictions of the Notification. However, the bigger challenge is to create sustainable and economically viable alternatives in a rapidly changing economy and a constantly evolving community.
Forests
Dahanu has the third highest area (47,606 ha) under forests amongst the 15 talukas of Thane district (Regional Plan 1996-2015). The proportion of forest area to total geographical area is 45.91%, making it the predominant land use of the region (estimates provided by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Dahanu division).
A large part of the adivasi community resides in this zone, in remote, almost inaccessible, villages. In spite of a rich history of resistance, the adivasis are today either marginal farmers or work as daily wage labourers in orchards, brick kilns, or on boats earning a wage of Rs 50-80 a day, struggling to live off their slowly eroding forests. Many migrate for several months of the year to nearby places for work.
It can be safely assumed that the entire tribal population is Below the Poverty Line (BPL) in Dahanu given that the figure of BPL families is a high 69% which is approximately the population figure of the region.
Shiraz Balsara of the Kashtkari Sanghatana, a social movement working with the adivasis of Dahanu for the last two decades, discusses their role in the environmental campaign. She states that the Sanghatana is opposed to an elitist kind of environmentalism that is not pro-people, but that they have in fact supported the environmental campaign from its initial stages.
However, it is interesting to note that in the last decade there has been no mobilisation or inclusion of the adivasis in the environmental campaign in any significant form.
On the contrary, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which disagrees with the environmentalists, has held rallies and demonstrations of adivasis demanding the removal of the special environmental status granted to Dahanu.
“A blanket ban on a number of industries is not a balanced view of development, and while concerns about the environment are important, the creation of jobs and livelihoods for a marginalised community are equally critical,” states Mariam Dhawale, member of the Maharashtra state secretariat of the CPI(M) and of the All India Democratic Women’s Association, an organisation of the CPI(M) active in the region.
The adivasi community has remained largely unaffected by the environmental campaign. Kitayun Rustom admits that it was impossible for them to create a consciousness amongst the adivasis regarding the Notification, given that most of their time went in opposing violations either before the Dahanu Authority or at various courts.
Discussions with the adivasi community in various villages (Sogve, Raytali and Jamshet), reveal that while some of them acknowledge that pollution from the thermal power plant is an issue, very few are even aware that Dahanu is a notified zone.
The forest department is unable to provide a systematic assessment of the potential benefits of the Dahanu notification on the forests and consequently on tribals. Anecdotal accounts indicate that there has been considerable degradation in the last ten years, suggesting that the Notification has not led to any meaningful ecological improvement of Dahanu.
Orchards
Between the sandy soils of Dahanu's coast and the coarser earth of the hills, the plains with their black cotton soil have created a lucrative horticultural economy with chickoo as the primary commercial crop (6% of land in Dahanu is under horticulture) and subsidiary plantations of coconut and mango.
Aware of the havoc pollution can wreak on their crops, most orchard owners have supported the environmental movement and the resulting restrictions on development.
The campaign to ensure that the local thermal power plant does not pollute has been primarily supported by the orchard owners, organised under the banners of the DTEWA and more recently, the Dahanu Parisar Bachao Samiti, concerned about the impact of emissions on their crops.
However, the farming and orchard-owning community in Dahanu also grapples with its own realities. With declining yields since the late-1990s post the attack of a seed borer and reduced viability of the orchard economy, the challenge facing farmers is to be able to retain their tranquil way of life while still redefining their sources of livelihood.
Prabhakar Save, a progressive orchard owner running Tarpa, a rural tourism centre on his farm at Gholvad, states, “The constant monitoring and vigilance of the environmental campaign has played a critical role in ensuring that the region is largely protected from the impact of industrialisation and pollution. However, as farmers in a constantly changing economy, it is our responsibility to innovate and ensure that horticulture and associated activities can bring about increased incomes while still protecting the environment.”
Conclusion
Dahanu may have been saved from becoming a toxic hotspot like its neighbour Vapi. Additionally, the legal restrictions on industrialisation may have played some role in protecting the cultural identity and livelihoods of the diverse communities of Dahanu.
However, for environmental justice and equitable growth to happen in tandem, much more would need to be done. Efforts to create a parallel economy based on rural tourism are options that need to be urgently explored. The need of the hour is to demonstrate alternative and sustainable forms of development that are economically and ecologically viable.
(This is the first in a series of articles by Michelle Chawla, researched as part of the Infochange Media Fellowships 2008. Michelle has a Master’s degree in social work and is founder and trustee of the Tamarind Tree Trust, which is located on a chickoo farm in Dahanu, Maharashtra, and works on developmental and environmental issues in Dahanu. Her series for Infochange documents the conflict between environment-protection, development and livelihoods, by looking at Dahanu as a microcosm in which these conflicts have been playing out since 1991.)

Maharashtra wants Dahanu port despite SC's embargo


Hemant Babu
MUMBAI, October 23: In what could amount to violation of Supreme Court directives, the State Government has initiated a move to modify the Dahanu Regional Plan to pave the way for Australian transnational P&O Ports (India) Pvt Ltd to set up an industrial port in the eco-fragile district.
The Urban Development Ministry of the State has written to the Union Forest and Environment Ministry seeking permission to modify the development plan of Dahanu which has been frozen by the Supreme Court till 2015 AD.
Confirming that such a letter has been written to the Union Government, K Nalinakshan, secretary, Urban Development, said: ``We have just sought the permission of the Union ministry for modification of the Supreme Court approved plan. It is a long drawn out procedure...we will have to notify the modifications in the plan, ask for the objections from public and hold a public hearing. But we'll have to do it since the project is very important for the State.'' The importance being accorded to the project can be gauged by Chief Minister Manohar Joshi's instructions to officials that they should work towards clearing all hurdles for signing the agreement with P&O in the first week December this year.
P&0 Ports (India) Pvt Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of P&O Australia Ports Ltd. The idea of setting up a port in joint venture with the State Government near Vadhavan in Dahanu district was conceived during the Advantage Maharashtra jamboree earlier this year. But the long-drawn debate over the eco-fragility of Dahanu might yet come in the way of the State Government's plans. It was in 1991 that the Centre declared Dahanu taluka's 250,000 acres as ecologically fragile, and passed the Dahanu Notification prohibiting change of land-use in the region. Vadhavan, where the port is being planned, is a Green/No-Development Zone in that plan.
In 1996, when the State Government continued to plan major projects in the area in violation of the notification, local groups dragged it to the Supreme Court. In October that year, the court ordered the State to prepare a Master Plan/Regional Plan for the area's development within two months.
Once the Master Plan was prepared in consonance with the Centre's notification, the State took the Supreme Court's permission to refer it to the National Environmental and Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur. NEERI, on its part, recommended some changes. While ordering the State to implement the NEERI recommendations, the court froze the plan till 2015 AD.
But in February 1997 the government announced the construction of a 29-berth industrial port in Vadhavan -- which was not part of the Master Plan. It is for this reason that the State has now sought the Centre's clearance to modify the plan.
Dahanu has an area of about 100,000 acres of forests, farms and wetlands right in the middle of booming industrial belt on Mumbai-Ahmedabad line. It is the home of Warli tribals, well-known for their art work. They have long history of agitating on environmental issues.
Earlier it was thermal power project which had sparked off an agitation involving horticulturists, tribals and fisherfolk of the area. Realising that it was the agitation time again, 14 organisations of tribals, fishermen and environmentalists have formed an alliance -- PAIL, Thane (People's Alliance for Implementation of Law, Thane) -- to oppose the ``illegal port development''.
With the Australian multinational having concluded a geo-technical survey, oceanographic study and market study in consultation with A F Fergusson for the port -- which is expected to have a total throughput of 13.6 MT in phase-I in the first year -- all eyes will now be on the team from the Union ministry that is expected to visit the site to take the final decision on the State's request.
Eco authority set up
The eco-sensitive people in Dahanu taluka got a shot in the arm with the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest setting up a Dahanu Taluka Environment (Conservative) Authority.The authority, headed by Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari, is expected to work as watch-dog for preservation of the fragile ecological balance of the region. The committee will have its headquarters in Mumbai.
Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

Piqued P&O walks out of Vadhavan project after pillar-to-port rigmarole


Sanjay Jog
Mumbai, Nov 9: P&O Ports of Australia has dropped its plans to develop a Rs 4,000-crore port at Vadhavan near Dahanu. The company has taken the decision as it could not get a loan from the World Bank for the project, according to government sources here. No confirmation could, however, be got from P&O officials.
The company has not entirely abandoned its Indian plans and is reportedly considering alternative sites in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. P&O's decision was also prompted by the fact that the state government did little to expedite the project which was bogged down by bureaucratic delays and legal hurdles.
Observers believe that that the first sign of P&O wishing to exit from the project was apparent when it had made an offer to Reliance Industries to take a majority stake. In the initial equity pattern, P&O held 72 per cent but was willing to pare it to 26 per cent so that Reliance would pick up 46 per cent. And in the event of the Indian company wishing controlling stake, otherinvestors like the government of Maharashtra and ICICI could be persuaded to give the balance five per cent to Reliance.
Under the 50 year BOOT (build-own-operate-transfer) agreement between the state government and P&O, the licensee was free to fix value and denomination of tariff and there was a guarantee that no other port would come up between the Gujarat border and Mumbai.
P&O Ports' project was recently declared as "wholly impermissible and, therefore, illegal" by the Dahanu Environmental Protection Authority (DTEPA) headed by Justice C. Dharmadhikari. However as far as establishing the legality of constructing a port in a coastal zone regulation (CRZ) (I) was concerned, the DTEPA left it to the state government to approach the high court.
The DTEPA, in its order, stated that "in the regional plan prepared for the Dahanu area, there is no provision for a port at Vadhavan or any other site in Dahanu. The proposed project is therefore will be a clear violation of the plan." The order thereby clearlysealed the fate of the project under the Regional Plan, to implement which the Supreme Court had instituted the DTEPA. The DTEPA also stated that a vast mega port, such as the one P&O planned fell within the definition of an industry. And industries under the Dahanu plan could come in a 500 acre area already earmarked as an industrial zone. Taking note of a NEERI report which had already declared the port detrimental to the environment, the DTEPA acknowledged Dahanu as the last surviving green zone in that coastal area.
The DTEPA also stated, that although the regional plan could be changed, this would have to be in accordance with the notification of ecofragility of the area.It also rapped P&O Ports stating that it had not availed of the opportunity to given to conduct environmental surveys neccessary for the detailed environmental impact assessment report. P&O received permission to do so on August 11 but failed to provide the information to the DTEPA. Instead P&O had asked the DTEPA to first settle theissue of legality of the site.
When P&O first proposed the project it was opposed by environmental activists on two grounds. One, it violated the Dahanu notification of 1991 declaring the area as an eco fragile zone and two, it was illegal under the coastal zone regulation. The DTEPA declared the site illegal under the ecofragility notifications. It however left the entire issue of whether a port can be constructed in a CRZ untouched.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

Read original at : http://www.expressindia.com/fe/daily/19981110/31455574p.html

No "green" signal for P&O plea to extend Vadhavan port impact study


Sanjay Jog  
MUMBAI, May 9: The fate of the Rs 3,500-crore Vadhavan port near Dahanu in Thane district to be developed by P&O Australia Ports still hangs in the balance. This follows the denial of a four-month extension by the Dahanu Environment Authority (DEA) for carrying out an environment impact assessment by the company.DEA chief and former Mumbai high court justice CS Dharmadhikari on Saturday confirmed the news and added that the DEA had also sought a stoppage of work by the company at the project site.
P&O Australia had sought a four-month extension from the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) to carry out an environment impact assessment (EIA) for the Vadhavan port project after the last deadline lapsed on April 30. The company, which received a letter of intent from the then prime minister HD Deve Gowda on February 17, 1997, for development of Vadhavan port with 29 berths, has so far received two extensions from the board.
Top sources said that the MMB had forwarded the request to the DEA. The authority hasbeen set up by the state government following strong opposition from the locals. It will take decisions on issues related to environment conservation, effect on fishing and related activities after the development of the port. The authority has been delegated necessary powers to clear such policy decisions.
The MMB would submit the Vadhavan project proposal to the union environment ministry only after the company prepares the EIA report. P&O has already finalised the design for the project.
Sources confirmed that the company had recently threatened to pack up following the agitation by locals, various political parties and trade unions. A letter in this regard has already been submitted to the state government and Sena supremo Bal Thackeray who was keen on development of the port.
P&O Australia Ports has already received offers from the governments of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu to set up similar ports. Gujarat chief minister Keshubhai Patel is believed to have given an open invitation with ahost of concessions as also Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu and his counterpart in Tamil Nadu, M Karunanidhi.
Maharashtra chief minister Manohar Joshi will soon convene a meeting of the fishing community and farmers from Dahanu region, various political parties and company officials. A rift has surfaced between the ruling partners on this issue with the Sena backing the project and the BJP opposing it.
Meanwhile, P&O Australia has awarded contracts for development of container terminals at Haldia and Kochi with an investment of Rs 350 crore each. The company has already received contract letters from the respective states. Sources said that the company would explore further possibilities for development of such small projects in other states.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

oldBusiness Bombay port plan enrages conservationists

Wednesday, November 19, 1997 Published at 07:41 GMT 




P&O spokesman Nikhil Naik with an artists impression of the proposed port 

One of the world's biggest shipping companies has been criticised by conservationists over plans to build a massive new port in India.
Environmentalists and local fishermen are at loggerheads with P&O, who want to build a giant container port in virgin forest to the north of Bombay.
Many Indian politicians and businessmen are in favour of the Dahanu plan, which they say will maintain the momentum of India's economic growth.
Experts estimate India needs to double the number of ports it has and the developers want to build 30 cargo berths at Toluka, making it one of the biggest ports in the world.

[ image: India is chronically short of port space]
India is chronically short of port space
The area, described as the "lungs of Bombay", is one of only three in the whole country described as environmentally fragile. Opponents fear its development would lead to a great urban sprawl along the coast of Maharashtra state.
The proposed port sits on the site of a shrine to the god Shiva, where local people pray and scatter the ashes of the dead.
Residents are furious and say the port would not only desecrate a holy place but devastate one of India's last idylls.
But the natural rockshelf there makes it an ideal site for an international port, say P&O.
"There is a tremendous need for more port facilities and that is why there is why a need for a port at Toluka." says P&O company spokesman Nikhil Naik, "It must be allowed to develop as the rest of the country is developing.
"You can't have one small part of the country not developing."

[ image: Nergis Irani...opposed to port]
Nergis Irani...opposed to port
Anti-port campaigner Nergis Irani says: "It kills me to think about it ....it is so beautiful. I don't think anyone has the right to destroy an area like this."
Fishermen have also been organising against the project which is backed by Maharashtra's state government.
One of their leaders, Ashok Ambire, says: "We don't want this multi-national company here. We don't want this port. They will just exploit our resources.
"We won't gain anything. They'll take our wealth abroad."
The port scheme does have some support locally.
Firdosh Patel, who owns a fruit orchard in Dahanu, says: "I don't see any reason why a modern port cannot come in and we can sustain the same lifestyle we have been enjoying for the past century."

[ image: Manohar Joshi...welcomes jobs]
Manohar Joshi...welcomes jobs
Maharashtra's chief minister, Manohar Joshi, is keen on pushing the port scheme ahead: "As soon as the port starts there will be at least 2,000 jobs created directly and we presume there will eventually be 15,000 people employed, not including ancillary industries."
Whatever the arguments, many cynics say the port will get the go ahead even if the state government has to change the law. 


A Case Study of Dahanu Town in Maharashtra Geetanjoy Sahu


Read original pdf at : http://www.ecoinsee.org/6bconf/Theme%20F/F.1.4%20Geetanjoy.pdf


1                                                        
Theme: Towards Green and Sustainable Socio-economic Systems
Sub-Theme: Sustainable Urban Habitats
Sustainable Urban Habitats through Institutional and Community Interface:
A Case Study of Dahanu Town in Maharashtra
Geetanjoy Sahu

1 Introduction
Dahanu Town is situated 120 km. north of Mumbai, in the Thane district of Maharashtra, and is
one of the last green belts along the country's rapidly industrializing western coast. Dahanu was
"notified", or classified, under the Indian Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) by the Ministry of
Environment & Forests (MoEF) on 19 th  February, 1991.

2  The CRZ bans any new construction
and development activities within 500 meters of the high tide line. Dahanu Taluka was also
declared “eco-fragile” by a government notification of June 21, 1991

3  (Notification under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, restricts the development of industries, mining operations and other development in the region). Even though Dahanu had been declared an ecologically fragile
area, political and industrial interests continued to bring forward development projects in Dahanu
Taluka, sidelining both the eco-fragile notification and the CRZ notification of the Government
of India. This led environmentalist Bittu Sehgal to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court in
1994, asking the Court to implement the notifications in Dahanu Taluka.

4  The Supreme Court  then appointed the National Environmental  Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to  investigate the issues set forth in the petition. Based on the findings of the NEERI report, the Supreme Court upheld the Dahanu Notification prohibiting any change of land-use in the region and ordered that a committee of experts be formed under Section 3 of the Environmental

1 Assistant Professor, Centre for Water Policy & Governance, School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. Email id: geetanjoy.sahu@gmail.com, geetanjoy@tiss.edu.
2  For more details, see Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 19 th  February 1991, New Delhi.
3  See Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 20
th June 1991, New Delhi.
4  See Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 231 of 1994.

2 Protection Act of 1986 to ensure implementation of the environmental laws protecting Dahanu's
eco-fragility. The MoEF appointed the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority in
1996 under the chairmanship of retired Mumbai  High Court Justice C S. Dharmadhikari and
supported by a team of eleven expert members.
5  Since the formation of the DTEPA in 1996, the
Authority has been engaged in resolving several disputes revolving around environmental issues.
In this paper, I argue that an independent and proactive Court-appointed monitoring committee,
namely the DTEPA, has not only ensured the effective implementation of environmental laws
and sustained the rare urban habitats in India but has also exposed the anti-environment bias of
both the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the  State Government of
Maharashtra. Further, the DTEPA has created a space for urban based civil society groups and
other stakeholders to be part of the monitoring committee to help implement Court directions. I
discuss how the DTEPA’s inclusive approach has empowered the local people to participate in
decision-making that affects their environment. In establishing this argument, however, I argue
that the implementation of environmental laws through Court Appointed Committee is also
triggered by the active and consistent involvement of urban middle class and civil-society groups
at the grassroots level.
Powers of DTEPA
With a mandate to protect the ecology, natural resources and livelihoods of a region, the Dahanu
Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) has for a period of ten years been more than
just a watchdog institution. Recognising the ecological politics of control over natural resources,
the Authority has unwaveringly stood by the principles of social justice and equitable rights for
local communities. With its landmark orders, the DTEPA has contributed to the environmental
5  For more details, see Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 19 th  December 1996, New Delhi.  3
                                                         
discourse in India. Considered a quasi-judicial body, the Authority has functioned like a peoples'
court, responding to local environmental complaints and problems. Through a process of
hearings, the Authority has been  able to discuss and debate issues in a democratic manner,
holding both public and private institutions accountable.
The MoEF appointed the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority in 1996 under the
chairmanship of retired Mumbai High Court Justice S. Dharmadhikari and supported by a team
of eleven expert members.
6  The Authority is empowered to exercise the following powers and
functions:
• to protect the ecologically fragile areas of Dahanu Taluka and to control pollution in the
said area;
• to consider and implement the "Precautionary Principle" and the "Polluter Pays
Principle";
• to consider and implement the recommendations given by NEERI in respect of Dahanu
Taluka;
• to ensure the implementation of the notifications issued by the Government of India in
the Ministry of Environment and Forests No. S.O. 114(E) dated the 19 th  February, 1991  and No. S.O. 416 (E) dated the 20 th  June, 1991;
• to comply with the relevant orders issued by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme
Court from time to time;
• to deal with any other relevant environment issues pertaining to Dahanu Taluka,
including those which may be referred to it by the Union Ministry of Environment and
Forests; and
• to furnish a progress report about its activities at least once in two months to the Central
Government via the MoEF
Activities of DTEPA from 1996-2008
6
 For more details, see Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Notification dated 19 th December  1996, New Delhi.  4
                                                         
Since the formation of the DTEPA in 1996, the Authority has been engaged in resolving several
disputes revolving around environmental issues. In this section, we highlight the major activities
of the Authority for environmental protection and improvement in Dahanu Taluka.
Background: The Dahanu Thermal Power Plant Case
In 1989 the State Government of Maharashtra  approved a proposal of the Bombay Suburban
Electricity Supply Company (BSESC), to set up a coal-based thermal power plant in the Dahanu
Town of Thane District. On March 29, 1989, two local environmental activists: Nergis Irani and
Kityam Rustom (Members of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group) along with
Bombay Environmental Action Group filed writ petitions first in the Bombay High Court and
then in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Central Government to build the
power plant.
7  They lost the case, with the Court citing the necessity of energy to power the city
of Mumbai as strong grounds to sanction the project. To allay petitioners’ apprehensions of
environmental damage, the Court directed that the condition requiring the installation of a Flue
Gas Desulphurisation (FGD)
8  plant should not be relaxed without a full consideration of the
consequences.
While this condition was imposed in 1989, no attempt was made by the BSESC to install FGD.
The environmentalists took up the issue with the specially constituted quasi-judicial Authority,
the DTEPA, that passed an order on May 12th 1999 directing the company to initiate the process
of "setting up of the FGD unit within a period of six months and complete the same within a
reasonable time period."
9  Over the years, the company tried to escape this mandatory
environmental clearance by challenging the order of the Dahanu Authority in the High Court of
7 Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. with
Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1991 (2) SCC 539.
8  A Flue gas de-sulphurisation unit performs the important role of reducing the sulphur di-oxide emissions from the
thermal power plant.
9  Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated May 12 th 1999.  5
                                                         
Mumbai as well in the Supreme Court of India. However, the Authority's order was upheld both
by the High Court of Mumbai and the Supreme Court in 2000. Therefore, it was mandatory for
the company to install FGD as directed by the Authority.
The thermal power plant was taken over from BSESC by Reliance Energy Ltd (REL) in 2002.
As per the DTEPA order and REL's own schedule FGD was supposed to be installed in February
2005. When contacted about the delay, the Dahanu Power Plant Manager
10  said that “the
company has been keeping all the emission parameters well below the most stringent standards
without the installation of FGD. So why is there a need for FGD?”
In March 2005, the environmentalists filed an  application with the Dahanu Authority seeking
redressal in the form of a 300 crore rupees bank guarantee from the company demonstrating its
commitment to installing a pollution control device in an ecologically fragile zone. After several
hearings, the Dahanu Authority passed an order holding Reliance Energy responsible for the
unnecessary delay in abiding by environmental clearance conditions as well as Court orders that
demanded the setting up of the FGD unit. The Dahanu Authority directed Reliance Energy to put
down a bank guarantee of Rupees 300 crore to prove its commitment to protecting Dahanu's
environment.
11  Reliance Energy appealed against this order in the Mumbai High Court in April
2005. In June 2005, the Mumbai High Court upheld the Authority's verdict regarding installation
of the FGD unit, but lowered the amount of the bank guarantee from Rs.300 to Rs.100 crores.
12 A deadline of October 2007 was accepted by all  as being the final time schedule for the
installation of the FGD unit. When contacted about the status of implementation, the
Chairperson
13  of the Authority acknowledged that the deadline had been met.
The Vadhavan International Port Case
10  Interview with Prasad Rao, Dahanu Thermal Power Station Head by Geetanjoy Sahu on 23.09.2008.
11  Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated 19 th  March 2005.
12  For more details, see Michelle Chawla  “Dahanu: The Environmentalists versus The People”, available at
http://infochangeindia.org/200504055755/Environment/Features/Dahanu-The-Environmentalists-versus-ThePeople.html
13  Interview with Justice S Dharmadhikari, Chairperson of DTEPA, by Geetanjoy Sahu on 28.09.08. 6
                                                         
On 17 February 1997, the State Government of Maharashtra accepted a proposal from P&O
Australia to build an international port at Vadhavan - a small fishing village in the Dahanu
region. The State Government required that P&O Australia submit a detailed feasibility report,
including an environmental impact assessment study, within six months, and obtain all the
necessary environmental clearances from the Central Government.
14  Meanwhile, objection was
raised by the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group, People’s Alliance for
Implementation of Laws, Vadhavan Bandar Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti, and others that, in view of
the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the two notifications to save Dahanu’s green belt,
the construction or establishment of such a Mega Port is not permissible. Moreover, in the
Regional Plan prepared for the Dahanu area, there is no provision for a Port at Vadhavan or any
other place in Dahanu Taluka.  Hence, the proposed Port would be in clear violation of the
Regional Plan.
15 The proposal to develop a port at Vadhavan in Dahanu region was forwarded by the MoEF to the DTEPA in November 1997 for its examination.  The DTEPA gave its final decision on this
matter on 19 September 1998. The DTEPA distinguished between two different questions raised
by the port proposal: the legality of the project and its environmental feasibility. It was initially
reluctant to decide the legality issue without considering also the feasibility question. For that
purpose, it gave P&O Ports (India) permission to complete a detailed Environmental Impact
Assessment of the project.
16 While P&O India did carry out several preliminary studies, it was
not ready to proceed with a full scale EIA unless the question of the project legality was
resolved.
14  See Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated 19
th September 1998.
15  For more details, see www.freedahanu.org. Also, see Ritu Dewan & Michelle Chawla (1999), ‘Of Development
Amidst Fragility: A Societal and Environmental Perspective on Vadhavan Port’, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.  
16  See Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority Report dated 19
th
 September 1998, p.2. 7
                                                         
The Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group argued that building a Mega-Port in Dahanu
would be inconsistent with the Dahanu and CRZ Notifications, and with the Supreme Court’s
decision of 31 October 1996. Moreover, as there was no provision for such a port in Dahanu’s
Regional Plan, the proposed port  was also in violation of this plan. These arguments were
rejected by the project promoters. While they  admitted that the Dahanu Notification provided
several restrictions for the setting up of industries in Dahanu, they  argued that the term
‘industries’ should be interpreted as applying only to “industries processing or manufacturing
goods”, and that the Notification has, therefore, “no application to the setting up of a port”.
The DTEPA rejected the arguments of the project sponsors. It noted that the current Regional
Plan for Dahanu provided no place for an industrial port. It noted, further, that while the word
‘industry’ was not defined in the Dahanu Notification, “such a vast port, will obviously fall
within the ambit and scope of the word industry”, and that, therefore, “the construction or
establishment of such a Mega Port is  wholly prohibited by [the] notification".
17
 The DTEPA
pointed, to the large back up facilities which would be required for the operation of the port, and
to the fact that the cargo handled by the port will include cement, coal, petroleum products and
chemicals. The DTEPA emphasized that unless the notification is amended, any modification of
the Regional Plan would have to be in conformity with it. The DTEPA justified its interpretation
by noting that Dahanu is the last surviving Green Zone on that Coastal area, is an ecologically
fragile area, and the construction of such a port will be detrimental to the environmental and the
socio-economic conditions of Dahanu area.
The DTEPA concluded that in view of these considerations the construction of such a Mega Port
at Vadhavan would be “wholly impermissible and, therefore, will be illegal”. The DTEPA’s
independence of the local political establishment enabled it to see clearly what would be the
social and environmental implications of the proposed port. In view of the DTEPA’s decision,
17
 Id at 4.  8
                                                         
P&O India announced that it would not be going  ahead with the plan to develop a port in
Dahanu.
18
DTEPA vis-à-vis MoEF
Ever since Dahanu was declared an eco-fragile area in 1994 and the  Court’s direction to
implement the notification in  1996 through the DTEPA, the political parties across their
ideological differences have not only defaulted on implementing the notification but have been
actively lobbying to rewrite the  laws of the land to benefit developers  and builders.
Environmentalists accuse industry and vested interests of subverting various laws that were
formulated to preserve the ecological fragility of the tribal-dominated Dahanu Taluka.
19
Proponents of development, on the other hand,  feel cheated by the notification and have
challenged it in the Mumbai High Court.
In fact, there have been several serious attempts to de-notify Dahanu as well as disband the
Dahanu Authority, by a section of powerful industrialists, builders and local politicians. In 2003,
a special committee was constituted to ascertain if Dahanu could be considered eco-fragile.
20
This Committee held a large public hearing in Dahanu with the aim of determining the views of
the people. However, the meeting was conducted by local commercial interests and politicians,
who asserted that the Dahanu notification was a major stumbling block to development in the
region, and that it should be withdrawn. Misrepresenting the notification to claim that even a
flour mill was not permitted in the area, the Committee created an atmosphere that projected a
collective opposition to the Notification and the function of the Authority.
18
 For more details, see Oren Perez “Reflections on an Environmental Struggle: P & O, Dahanu and the Regulation
of Multinational Enterprises”, Working Paper No. 1-2, May 2002, Bar-llan University.  
19
 Interview with local environmental activist Nergis Irani of Dahanu by Geetanjoy Sahu on 22.09.08
20
 See Mohan Rao Committee Report of 2003.  9
                                                         
Since its very inception, the Maharastra Government has been hostile to the notification, allege
environmentalists.
21
 The state government seems insincere about implementing the eco-fragile
notification. Most surprisingly, in January 2002, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, an
agency which should be protecting Dahanu and other eco-fragile areas, filed an application in the
Supreme Court demanding an end to DTEPA on the grounds that it had already completed its
work. The ministry claimed that it needs a single authority to monitor all eco-fragile areas.
22
 The
environmentalists fought this  application at the Supreme  Court and in January 2004, the
application was dismissed.
The ministry's move to scrap the DTEPA seems to lack any credible reason. It said that the
continuance of the Authority was not necessary as its only remaining activity was the finalisation
of the development plan for Dahanu. The MoEF argued that Dahanu is too small an area to have
a separate Authority of its own. Both the MoEF and the State Government of Maharashtra have
showed little willingness to engage in constructive discussions with the local community, and
seemed prepared to ignore the deep environmental and social problems of the development
projects. The ministry has starved the Authority of operating funds, although the Authority has
continued to function without these resources. The fault of the Authority seems to be that it took
action. It would appear that the government does not appreciate efficiency at the cost of
dissatisfying the industrialists. The DTEPA may just have been too effective for a government
appointed committee: it has experts and not figureheads on its board.
23
 
21
 Interview with Michelle Chawla, Coordinator of Save Dahanu and also member of DTEPG of Dahanu, by
Geetanjoy Sahu on 22.09.08
22
 In addition to Dahanu, more recently, the hill stations of Matheran and Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani have been
notified eco-sensitive zones in Maharashtra after a lot of pressure from environmentalists. There are other regions in
the country that are similarly notified, such as the Doon Valley (the first), the Aravalli range, Pachmarhi in Madhya
Pradesh and Numaligarh in Assam.
23
 See note 11 above.  10
                                                         
Why Is DTEPA Effective?
There are three crucial factors that determined the effective functioning of the Authority. First,
the Authority has been quite open to ideas and viewpoints of different stakeholders in dealing
with various environmental issues. Unlike other monitoring committees
24
 of the Supreme Court,
the Authority has conducted regular meetings and public hearings giving sufficient notice to each
and every party to the dispute. In this way, the local communities have found their voice with
regard to any development issues in Dahanu through their participation in the DTEPA meeting
and public hearing. The Authority has responded to all public appeals within a stipulated timeframe. There is no discrimination in this regard. The DTEPA demonstrates how the Environment
Protection Act can be used to give decentralised powers to an expert committee. The very idea of
an Authority of this type was to evolve a more decentralised approach to implementation of the
law. The Authority has proved this and seems worthy of emulation.
Second, effective leadership has been an important factor in the success of the Authority. The
Authority is functioning under the leadership  of retired Justice S. Dharmadhikari, who is
committed to the Gandhian vision of development and protecting environment from rapid
industrialization. He believes in strict adherence to the implementation of environmental laws.
His commitment to saving Dahanu’s green belt is explained in this observation: “There are
several industrial zones in Maharashtra for development activities; then why not spare 2% land
of Dahanu from development activities?” He also noted that around 60% of the people of
Dahanu Taluka are Scheduled Tribes who depend upon agriculture and fishing activities, for
whom modern forms of development are not going to generate any kind of livelihood.”
25
 
24
 Apart from Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection  Authority, there are several monitoring committees in
different environmental cases to ensure the implementation of Court directions, such as Loss of Ecology Authority
in the Vellore Industrial Pollution Case, Central Empowered Committee in the T N Godavarman Case, and Bhurelal
Committee in the Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case.
25
 See note 11 above.   11
As Chairperson of the DTEPA, Dharmadhikari has introduced new principles in the field of
rehabilitation in the Dahanu environmental case,  namely the principles of “pre-afforestation,”
and “pre-habilitation,” which are unprecedented.  Before cutting a tree, authorities concerned are
obliged to plant ten trees; before demolishing a house, authorities are obliged to construct a new
house for a person who is likely to be displaced, and only after the person shifts to the new house
is demolition of the old house permitted. Under the Justice’s leadership, afforestation
programmes have taken place in several villages of Dahanu Taluka, such as in Khambale,
Chikhala, Kodad, Khanivade, Nandgaon, Jalsar, and also in Dahanu Town.
Third, the composition of the Authority has been one of the significant factors in its effective
functioning.  The Authority consists of one retired judge as  Chairperson and eleven expert
members from different fields. The coordination among the members to deal with any kind of
environmental problem is quite unique. DTEPA may be the only Authority in India that has been
consistently conducting its meeting and submitting its report as per the direction of the Court.
None of the derailing strategies – from the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the political
and industrial lobby – have succeeded in influencing the impartial and independent function of
the members of the Authority. This commitment reflects a sustained willingness of the members
to render the decision-making process more democratic and participatory. Furthermore, the
DTEPA, in its strong standing  against the local political and  industrial establishment, has
effectively reflected the hopes and aspirations of environmentalists and local community
members in Dahanu Town.
Lessons to be drawn
The effectiveness of DTEPA can be followed as a model for other Court-appointed committees.
What has allowed the independent functioning of this committee, despite various problems
created by the MoEF and state agencies, was its ability to provide hope and a mode of expression
to the local community. The fact that the Court decisions in a majority of cases have not been
implemented has not discouraged the local community in Dahanu Town in having faith in the 12
justice system. Thus, the work of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority was of
significant not only for its democratic nature of functioning but also because its multidisciplinary structure and highly independent mode of operation created a new deliberative
space, which was open to the arguments of  the local community in Dahanu Town. The
independent and impartial nature of functioning of the Authority suggests that the expert
members of a Court-appointed committee, once selected, must rise above any other
considerations to find out the ground reality. They should discharge their functions judiciously
and objectively. If this happens and the expert body is empowered to take independent decisions,
a Court-appointed monitoring committee can be an effective instrument for India’s long term
environmental management.

P&O submits blueprint for Vadhavan port project; locals up in arms


P&O of Australia has submitted its final blueprint for the Vadhavan port project to the Maharashtra State Maritime Board while the state government still awaits clearance from various central government ministries.
The project, to be built on a creek near Dahanu, 140 kilometres north of Bombay, is in the eye of a storm with the local people fiercely opposing it
The state government had sold the project during the Advantage Maharashtra seminar held at the beginning of the year to attract foreign investment. As per the government's plan, it will be the biggest port in Asia.
Local villagers are agitating against the project, fearing harm to the extremely green belt. Even after the state government declared the Dahanu region as environmental sensitive (which means tree felling will be limited), the people are unwilling to compromise.
Shankhodar, the place where the port is scheduled to come up, is protected from the Arabian Sea due to the alignment of big boulders. Local villagers believe in the area believe that Lord Ram cremated his father Dasharath at this place. Locals from the surrounding villages of Chinchani, Mahim and 12 others are opposed to this project.
P&O had appointed a non-governmental organisation Vasundhara to assess the social and financial obstacles caused to people because of the project. While the report submitted the company is yet to be made public, BBC acquired a copy of the same and released the findings when broadcasting a documentary on the project.
According to the documentary, a survey conducted by Vasundhara showed a massive 70 per cent of the people were against the project against a measly 3.4 per cent favouring it. As many as 93.2 percent of the respondents stated that they received information about the project from government agencies and P&O, and considered both sources biased. The report states that the villagers earned their livelihood from the surrounding forests and considered the area economically self-sufficient. They saw little need for the project, states the report.
Chief Minister Manohar Joshi had claimed that the project would create 2000 jobs. Countering his claim, the local villages point out that the 500 to 600 fishing bats operating in the Dahanu region provides employment to about 4,500 people, with each boat needing seven to eight persons. The villagers declare that they are unwilling to allow a project which will create only 2000 jobs and affect the livelihood of the rest.
Incidentally, the representatives of the area, Bhraratiya Janata Party member of Parliament Govind Vanga and Congress legislator Shankar Nam reportedly have strong reservations about the project and have voiced their opposition in private.
The local people also fear that the project will completely disrupt their sociol lifestyle.
Compiled and translated from the Marathi media by Prasanna Zore

Indian Protest at P & O Port by The Ecologist

Reflections on an environmental struggle: P&O, Dahanu, and the regulation of multinational enterprises

On February 17, 1997, the Government of the Indian State of Maharashtra awarded P&O Australia, part of the P&O group,1 a contract to build an international port at Vadhavan - a small fishing village at the Dahanu region - 120 km north of Bombay.2 The planned port would have been, when completed, the biggest deep-water port in India. Despite its close distance to the metropolis of Bombay, the area of Dahanu remained mostly "green," hosting a rich diversity of plants and wild animals. It is considered the "lung" of the crowded and over-polluted Bombay. The construction of the port would have caused massive damage to Dahanu's fragile ecosystem 

Read complete at : http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-236492251.html 

UK Parliament info : P&O at Vadhavan in Dahanu Taluka, India;


TRADE AND INDUSTRY


India (Port Development)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations the Government has made to (a) P&O and (b) the Indian Government regarding the proposed port development by P&O at Vadhavan in Dahanu Taluka, India; [22455]
    (2) what action she has taken in response to representations she has received regarding the proposed port development by P&O at Vadhavan in Dahanu Taluka, India; [22456]
    (3) how many representations received by Her Majesty's Government regarding the proposed port development by P&O at Vadhavan in Dahanu Taluka, India have been (a) in favour of and (b) against the project; [22457]


Mrs. Roche: To date, HMG have received seven representations regarding the proposed port development by P&O at Vadhavan. No representations were in favour of the project, and one came indirectly from the local people via the Dahanu Taluka Environment Welfare Association.

Reflections on an Environmental Struggle: P&O, Dahanu, and the Regulation of Multinational Enterprises


Copyright (c) 2002 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review

ARTICLE: Reflections on an Environmental Struggle: P&O, Dahanu, and the Regulation of Multinational Enterprises

2002 15 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 1

Author : Oren Perez *

Excerpt

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 17, 1997, the Government of the Indian State of Maharashtra awarded P&O Australia, part of the P&O group, 1 a contract to build an international port at Vadhavan--a small fishing village at the Dahanu region--120 km north of Bombay. 2 The planned port would have been, when completed, the biggest deep-water port in India. Despite its close distance to the metropolis of Bombay, the area of Dahanu remained mostly "green," hosting a rich diversity of plants and wild animals. It is considered the "lung" of the crowded and over-polluted Bombay. The construction of the port would have caused massive damage to Dahanu's fragile ecosystem and would have interfered brutally with the lives of its people. The local community, which strongly resisted the project, opened a determined campaign against it, which eventually prevented it from being built. This article tells the story of the struggle against the port, setting it against the unique social landscape of contemporary India. 3

The story of Dahanu raises two legal problems that have implications far beyond the "borders" of the Indian society. The first concerns the difficult question of the regulation of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs). The story of Dahanu exposes the deep limits of international legal regimes as potential "regulators" of MNEs--especially in the context of developing countries. In this context, the article will focus on several legal domains: public environmental law, the law relating to MNEs (the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises), and private international law ...

Read full at : https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=15+Geo.+Int'l+Envtl.+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=30865bf6c2cbb879de401307cf805894 
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Find us on facebook

AYUSH google group

AYUSH google group

↑ Grab this Headline Animator