Contents

Section I: BMIC Project Liable to be dismissed due to Fraud committed in clearance mechanism.

Section II: Denial of Public Domain Information and Human Rights Abuse in Environmental Public Hearings

Section III: Suppression of Relevant Facts in the NOC accorded by KSPCB

Section IV: Environment Impact Assessment: What it has Deliberately Ignored

Section V: Analysis of what is contained in the MECON EIA of the BMIC Project

In summary

Section I: BMIC Project Liable to be dismissed due to Fraud committed in clearance mechanism.

1. At the outset it is brought to the notice of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Expert Committee reviewing projects related to Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous Projects, that M/s. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE), the Project Developer, and the Government of of Karnataka (GOK) have committed fraud in wrongly presenting the credentials of the “Company” and the “Consortium” proposed to develop the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMIC). The details are provided below.

2. The Executive Summary of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the BMIC Project, dated September/October 1999 (01.S2.98.P040), prepared by M/s MECON Ltd., Bangalore for NICE, includes the GOK Order No. PWD 32 CSR 95, Bangalore, dated 20^th November 1995. It is stated therein that:

“the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project Report submitted by the consortium of M/s Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. and S. A. B. Engineering and Construction Inc. of U. S. A. and M/s Kalyani Group Ltd. is accepted by Government…” (Emphasis not in original)

This Order was issued having acknowledged in its Preamble as follows:

“When His Excellency, the Governor of Massachusetts State, U. S. A., during his visit to India, had discussion with Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka on 20^th February 1995, the Government of Karnataka entered into memorandum of understanding (M.O.U.) with consortium of M/s. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. and S.A.B. Engineering and Construction Inc., U.S.A. and M/s Kalyani Group Ltd. in the presence of His Excellency, Governor of Massachusetts and Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. Under this M.O.U., the Consortium has to conduct preliminary investigation, economic survey etc. for the expressway between Bangalore-Mysore and submit preliminary project report to the Government and if this project is economically feasible, then the Government could take further action.” (Emphasis not in original)

It further adds that:

“For review of the project report work done by the above consortium and also give necessary advice, recommendation etc., one High Level Committee was formed under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister for Public Works in Government Order No. PWD 32 CSR 95 dated 5.6.1995. In this High Level Committee, the Principal Secretary Commerce and Industries Department, Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Development, Secretary Public Works Department, Chief Engineer C&B (South Zone), Bangalore, the Chairman and Managing Director Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development Corporation were official members and the Chairman, Technical Advisory Committee (Irrigation) was non-official member. This Committee was meeting often to review` progress made and necessary advice and clarification were being given. The consortium presented their ‘Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project’ on 26.8.1995 at “KRISHNA” before the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble Ministers for Finance, Revenue, Home, Public Works, Major and Medium Industries and Major Irrigation and the High Level Committee members and other concerned officers. The High Level Committee after conducting meetings and obtaining all clarification desired, submitted their report to Government on 12.10.1995. This report of the High Level Committee and the project report submitted by this consortium was examined in detail on 6.11.1995 by the Cabinet Sub-Committee for ‘examining the foreign capital investment cases’ and recommended that this report should be brought before the Cabinet’. (Emphasis not in original)

It also adds that:

“This project work will be constructed completely by this private entrepreneurs with their own resources and keeping with them for thrity years to get their return of the expenditure, profit, etc. through collection of tolls. The land acquisition expenditure will also be borne by them. To make this project viable they had proposed seven townships.” But “(c)onsidering the opinion of the Finance Department and also for making this project economically viable the Government considered it profitable to have five townships leaving the township No. 3, the Heritage Centre at Ramangara and township No6, Agricultural centre, near Mandya.” (Emphasis not in original)

And the Preamble concludes by stating that:

“The project report as explained above, has been examined in detail. It was felt that the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project considering five townships instead of seven townships would be economically viable. With this modification the recommendation made by the High Level Committee was examined in detail by the Government.” (Emphasis not in original)

It is clear from the above that the GOK claims to have “examined in detail” the proposal put forth by the Consortium.

3. NICE presented the “Environment Impact and Socio-Economic Assessment Report (Comprehensive Report)” for the BMIC Project prepared by M/s MECON Ltd. during September 1999 as the basis for obtaining NOC from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and final Environmental Clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The “Project Proponent” is described here as:

“M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited (NICE) a company formed by M/s Kalyani Group, Vanabe Hangen Brusten Inc., and SAB International Ltd., proposes to design and construct the 111 km infrastructure corridor that will efficiently move vehicles and transmit utilities between Mysore and Bangalore cities. As the owners of this Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) Project, M/s NICE will develop the financial plan to implement the project in its various phases and operate the facilities after the completion of construction….”. It may be noted here that “Vanabe Hangen Brusten Inc.”, as stated, is perhaps a misspelling for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. (as quoted in MOU adverted to earlier) that is claimed to be part of the Company.

4. Every piece of literature produced by NICE since its inception, lays claim to VHB’s integral involvement in the BMIC project. The official website of NICE, www.nicelimited.com (last modified on 01/05/00, and downloaded on 22 May 2001) lays claim to the involvement of the Mr. Richard Hangen, President of VHB, as part of the “Supervisory Committee” of the Project. The site further defines VHB’s involvement in the “Project Consortium”, along with the Kalyani Group of Companies, and SAB International LTD, as follows:

“VHB International LTD. (VHB) is a major transportation, land development and environmental services firm. The parent company, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., was founded in 1979 as a transportation firm. VHB has emerged as an industry leader in the fields of engineering, planning and applied sciences. VHB has wide experience in engineering design and construction management of large scale highway projects. The firm's land development group is well versed and experienced in the issues of township/ community planning and development. VHB will be the Consortium's lead engineer for the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project”. (Emphasis not in original)

5. In absolute contradiction to all that has been stated above, regarding VHB’s involvement in NICE, Mr. Richard Hangen, President of VHB, has emphatically denied the involvement of his company in the BMIC project in any manner whatsoever. This has been stated in an exchange of correspondence with the undersigned:

“VHB is not and never has been a principal in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE). VHB was engaged by NICE to prepare a preliminary plan for the BMIC. This plan was completed in 1995. Since then VHB has not been involved”. He further adds: “I do not know of the existence of any scope defining a future role for us” This correspondence took place via email between 27 March and 3^rd April 2001 and the relevant extracts are enclosed at Annexure A.

6. Mr. Richard Hangen’s statements are of crucial importance legally and to the techno-economic health of the BMIC project. It exposes the NICE lies and their fraudulent claims to VHB’s involvement in the BMIC project:

a) as a member of the “Project Consortium”,

b) as part of the “Company”, and

c) as well as “lead engineer” of the project.

7. Mr. Hangen’s statement also exposes the GOK, for since the inception of the project in February 1995, every MOU, order, agreement or such other document pertaining to the project has supported NICE’s claim of VHB’s involvement in the BMIC Project. Explicitly on such basis, all support of the GOK to the project has been extended. This includes:

· land acquisition (21,000 acres at highly subsidised rates of which 7,000 acres under the control of GOK, including forests and wetlands, are provided almost free);

· water supply (150 MLD potable water for which charges have not been fixed and 85 MLD waste water free);

· energy supply (upto 500 MW capacity development permissions and compulsory buy back agreement of excess power generated);

· egregious tax holidays (almost all urban and infrastructure development taxes are waived);

· waiver of NICE’s responsibility to Resettlement and Rehabilitation of displaced communities;

· exclusive authority over management of townships and expressways for lease period including governance;

· and last but certainly not the least, a land transfer agreement that allows NICE to retain the land acquired for the BMIC project, even in the event the project fails.

8. In addition to all the legal violations of NICE and GOK in pushing this project through, the techno-economic capacity for developing such a massive urban/infrastructure development scheme, the first such in Asia, will have to be considered with the greatest care and attention to detail. Two statements, in documents supplied for the environmental clearance mechanism, matter a great deal for the Ministry of Environment and Forests:

a) The aforementioned MOU recognises this project to be a “foreign capital investment case” and that “(t)his project work will be constructed completely by this private entrepreneurs with their own resources”. The private entrepreneur in the understanding of the MOU includes VHB, Kalyani Group and SAB Engineering and Construction Inc.

b) And then, it has been submitted by NICE to KSPCB, per Form XIII under Sections 25 or 26 of the Water Act, that “the company will incur all expenditure for construction and implementation of the project”. The “company”, as defined in the EIA prepared by MECON during September/October 1999, includes VHB, Kalyani Group and SAB.

VHB says it has never been involved in the BMIC project, except for a brief period when it did some consultancy work during 1995, and has no intention of getting involved in the future. Kalyani Group has absolutely no experience in developing such a massive project. And as for SAB Engineering and Construction Ltd, perhaps the same, or not even, as the SAB International[1] described in the EIA, it has not got a single project of this scale to its credit, despite being in the business, as claimed, since 1979! It thus becomes necessary to dis-believe NICE’s claims of possessing the required techno-economic substance and investment capacity as specious, to say the least.

9. Raising the very critical question, in this context, whether the involvement of Mr. Narayanan Vaghul, Chairman of Industrial Credit Investment Corporation of India (ICICI), who is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of NICE, has influenced the decision of ICICI to commit funding to the BMIC Project of NICE, as has been publicly reported? This when NICE would have been unable to provide documented proof of VHB’s involvement?

10. All in all, the bluff about VHB involvement has been called. It is imperative at this stage for the Ministry of Environment and Forests not to be a party to a most shocking fraud that is being perpetrated by NICE with tacit support of GOK and KSPCB on the wider public interest. Thus, per Sec. 4 of the EIA Notification, the BMIC Project proposal of NICE seeking environmental clearance must be rejected summarily, and the NOC accorded by KSPCB cancelled.

Section II Denial of Public Domain Information and Human Rights Abuse in Environmental Public Hearings

11. Even as the Grounds provided in Section I of this representation are adequate enough for rejection of the project, it is once more brought to the notice of the Ministry that the NOC accorded by KSPCB was based on Environmental Public Hearings that were featured denial of public domain information and blatant abuse of human rights of citizens by the State. This matter is now before the National Human Rights Commission, per Case No. 242/10/2000-2001 and the decision is being awaited. As the abuse was part of the environmental clearance process, details of which have already been communicated to the Ministry, it would be appropriate for the Ministry to await the Commission’s decision before proceeding on any matter pertaining to the BMIC Project.

Section III Suppression of Relevant Facts in the NOC accorded by KSPCB

12. Despite the absolute secrecy maintained by GOK, KSPCB and NICE on all matters pertaining to the BMIC Project, various committed individuals and groups have extensively reviewed the project from the partial information that has been made available. From their own independent ground surveys and extensive knowledge of the area, they have developed a critical analysis of the project’s impacts. These have been submitted to KSPCB prior to and during the Public Hearings. Yet to a large extent, none of these concerns or issues raised find even a mention in the Hearings’ reports or form the basis of the conditions framed in the NOC. These representations are now being brought, once again, to the notice of the Ministry highlight that GOK and KSPCB have deliberately suppressed critical concerns.

a) Mysore Grahakara Parishat submitted a note on 29 February 2000 detailing its grounds for opposition to the BMIC Project, particularly in light of viable alternatives to enable safe and high volume public transport that was both affordable and did not involve extensive land acquisition and displacement of communities. This note also exposed the deceptive claims on traffic flow patterns projected by NICE. This note along with Additional Objections and Suggestions filed on 30 June 2000 are annexed at Annexure .B.

b) Centre for Science and Technology submitted a letter dated 3^rd July 2000 to KSPCB stating that the claim of NICE to desilting 251 irrigation tanks within five kms. of the Expressway as a social gesture is specious, as the same would cost the promoter Rs. 1,255 crores! This note is annexed at Annexure C.

c) Members of the Birdwatchers Field Club of Bangalore presented a note to the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore on 3^rd July 2000 questioning how large extents of forest land was being allocated to the project, especially those where heavy expenditure exceeding Rs. 9 crores had been incurred for afforestation based on a loan from OECF, Japan. This note also brought to light that NICE had wrongly stated to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition 29221 of 1997 that no forestland would be utilised for the project. This note along with relevant extracts from the Annual Plan of Operation for 1998-99 of the Karnataka Forest Department demonstrating the OECF loan component is annexed at Annexure D. A submission in this regard was made at the 5^th July 2000 Public Hearing held at Bangalore, but these objections have been withheld by the KSPCB, while forwarding the proposal to the Ministry. Video clippings taken at the public hearing are available to substantiate this claim.

d) NICE ridiculously claimed that it would provide “naturally developed and camouflaged animal passes along the expressway along the established paths” wild animal migration corridors. This was in a letter dated 25 March 2000 responding to queries in this regard from The Wilderness Club. The Conservator of Forests, Bangalore Circle, has made an equally ridiculous statement on the subject in his letter dated 29 March 2000 as follows: “In the proposed area there are not many animals. However, there are adjoining forest area where wild animals, if any, can move as and when required”. These letters along with the query letter of the Club, dated 2^nd March 2000, are enclosed at Annexure E.

e) The alignment of the BMIC Project is a known elephant migration corridor. Human elephant conflicts in this area have been a matter of great concern. In recent years, elephants have crossed over from the Bannerghatta National Park all the way to the Savandurga forest, clearly a region that straddles across the corridor alignment. Considering that existing human settlements are already causing high risk to the animals, INCERT brought this to the notice of the Karnataka Forest Department. This letter dated 13 March 1999 along with relevant press reports and an acknowledgement of this problem by the Karnataka Forest Dept. are enclosed at Annexure F.

Section IV Environment Impact Assessment: What it has Deliberately Ignored

13. There are several ways to review an EIA, and we have chosen the most commonsensical and simple approach. This is to demonstrate that even from this least rigorous scale of review, the EIA presented by M/s MECON, comes across as a document without depth of research, glosses over several key impacts expected of such large urban/transport/industrial/infrastructure development projects, and deliberately fails to disclose several key data that need to be supplied for proper review. Importantly, it provides data that is not correct whilst offering ridiculous analysis aimed at distracting attention from some very real concerns of the BMIC project.

14. From a rough estimation, the following environmental impacts can be expected due to the BMIC Project, as described in the EIA.

a) The question of water: In addition to the metropolitan cities of Bangalore and Mysore (with a combined population of 75 lakhs), there already exist seven very large urban areas, including one major city (Mandya), along the two existing highways connecting the cities of Bangalore and Mysore, i.e. SH-17 (popularly known as Mysore Road) and SH-86 (popularly known as Kanakapura Road). All these urban areas are fast expanding. The major limiting factor for their growth is not land, but water. There already exists a very serious shortage of water supply to all these urban areas. For instance, Bangalore’s average water consumption is about 80 lpcd (litres per capita per day), compared to the recommended 200 lpcd, taking the aggregate consumption to about 600 MLD.

In this context, the BMIC Project proposes to add five more cities to this already heavily urbanised region and GOK has committed to supply 150 MLD of water from River Cauvery. The projected population in these new towns is variously stated as 5 lakhs or 7 lakhs, and there is no estimate provided of floating population. 150 MLD of water is sanctioned to a privileged 5 lakhs when 65 lakhs of people in Bangalore struggle with little or no water supply! The allotment to BMIC is also made at an average per capita consumption of ranging from 250 to 300 lpcd! In addition to this, the BMIC Project will receive 85 MLD of waste-water free for non-potable use, depriving farmers who use it presently for various agricultural purposes. This is also a region with extensive irrigation network based on the River Cauvery basin.

In view of the serious water problem in this region, there is very heavy extraction of ground water leading to an alarming drop in ground water levels. Over time the neglect of the tank systems has resulted in poor storage capacity adversely affecting the recharge potential of the aquifers. A major water crisis is thus looming in the region. If to this is added the pressure of additional urban areas, the crisis will only deepen further and become unmanageable over time. This particularly given that there is no guarantee to limiting the population increase in the new townships.

The EIA makes absolutely no reference to this problem, and thus offers no solutions.

b) Unregulated Growth of Urban Areas: The BMIC Project is clearly catering to the higher income bracket who can afford a lavish lifestyle and the townships are being designed keeping this in view. Consequently it is a population that will make:

· very heavy demands of water, land and energy,

· is based on personalised mode of transport,

· a consumptive pattern of development that is antithetical to the sustainable cities concept gaining precedence the world over, and

· proposes a highly disruptive and unhealthy social development wherein lavish lifestyles clash with the daily struggle for livelihood of the poor.

Even when one assumes that the townships themselves will be well planned and developed, there is no guarantee of the areas immediately outside the townships from getting urbanised, especially in an unplanned manner. As is wont agriculture would become impossible as drainage patterns and other support systems would be adversely affected along the Corridor. It is quite possible that farmers in such areas may resort to selling their land to gain the advantage of appreciated land values. This will add to the pressure of urbanisation and sooner than later would become impossible to manage with twelve cities and two, possibly three, metros in an approx. 100 kms. belt. This promises to make the region the most heavily urbanised and industrialised in an environmental condition that can least support it.

Most importantly it will not help decongest any of the existing urban areas, as the real estate values in these new townships will be unaffordable to even the middle classes who are already struggling to find affordable housing in the existing urban areas. Consequently the Expressway too will be of little relevance to them.

The EIA does not make any reference to this scenario.

c) Impact of industrialisation: Unless the nature of industry is known it is impossible to predict its environmental impacts. The BMIC Project townships include plans for heavy industrialisation which it is claimed is of the non-polluting variety. NICE literature discusses the possible industrialisation in these townships as being largely from the computer sector. It is a reality in Bangalore, for instance, that most software majors have already heavily invested in developing campuses of their own keeping in view their long term growth. A large section of those employed in this sector are oriented towards living in the main city or in its suburbs. The dot.com bust has only oriented the traditional computer industry to be more prudent with their long-term ventures, and thus very little may be expected in terms of trans-locating the existing facilities to the new townships proposed, if that were even a consideration. It may thus become expedient in time that the land acquired for such “non-polluting” industrial townships may be reallocated for polluting units at a later date with consequent problems.

This scenario has not been examined in the EIA or credible arguments dismissing the same offered.

d) Tourism and Health Care industry: NICE bases its development of industrial and urban areas that are “non-polluting” by relying heavily on investments in the tourism and health care sectors. It is thus proposed that these sectors are environmentally benign, in comparative terms. Amongst the main tourism projects is a massive 18-hole golf course on the banks of River Cauvery. The other tourism projects involve luxury hotels and resorts, entertainment centres, etc.

Golf courses, for instance, are some of the worst types of tourism projects that can be envisaged, especially in a context where pressure on land is high and water is sparse. Not only do they involve the complete removal of topsoil replaced with artificial turf, but also are very heavy water guzzlers, besides involving heavy introduction of pesticides and fertilisers. It must therefore be a cause of great concern that such a facility is being developed along the River Cauvery. The downstream impacts on a major source of drinking water in the region are bound to be serious, despite all the precautionary measures that can be taken, for there is no single point source of pollution.

The Health care centres planned are largely super-speciality hospitals aimed at attracting wealthy patients from abroad, especially to Health Resorts. These are also serious sources of pollution and the risks have not been examined.

Such concerns are not even discussed in the EIA.

e) Power Plant locations: GOK has committed to allow NICE to develop power plants with an aggregated capacity of 500 MW. Thus there may be one or several plants. The choice of fuel has also not been fixed. Nowhere in the EIA is there a mention of location choices of power plants. Clearly, existing guidelines, even if rarely forced by the Ministry, do not allow for location of power plants close to human settlements. Thus it is likely that these plants would be located in areas that would additionally have to acquired.

This concern has been completely glossed over in the EIA.

f) Waste Water Treatment Plants and Landfill sites: There is a growing realisation of the serious hazards that waste water treatment plants and solid waste landfills pose to the environment. Thus their siting has to be considered with great care. Beyond a mere acknowledgement that these facilities will be developed, what measures will be adopted to contain their impacts and where these facilities will be located are hardly discussed in the EIA. It is not clear if the landfill sites are within the new townships, or fresh area will be acquired. It is also not clear where the outlets for discharge of sewage and industrial effluents will be located in any or all of these townships and attendant facilities to the Expressway. There thus remains the serious risk of contamination of several or all of the surface and ground water bodies along the project alignment, and would thus threaten the potable and irrigation water supply security presently enjoyed by communities.

g) Altered Drainage Pattern, Flooding and Waterlogging: A long walled Expressway, as described in the BMIC Project, has a way of acting as channels for water drainage. This would affect existing drainage patterns drastically, and result in adverse impacts on agricultural areas, surface water bodies and ground water recharge. Further, depending on the topography, it would lead to certain areas, especially valley points, getting waterlogged. It is normally expected when evaluating such projects to provide a topographic description of these likely impact areas and describe the likely solutions. However, no attempt has been made in this regard.

h) Pressure on Forests and Fragmentation of Habitats: Besides destruction of forests for the BMIC Project, several well know wildlife habitats will be threatened by exposure to the Expressway and townships. Admittedly, the following forests will be adversely affected as the Expressway runs through them: Kalkere, Turahalli, “Unnamed State Forest”, Handigundi, Chikmangudde and Kurnagere. In addition, the townships would be developed adjacent to, in most cases, and not more than 5 kms., in some, of the following forests: Banneghatta National Park, Ragihalli, Sulukere, Kumbalgoddu, Basavanadar, Tenginkal, Maklai, Kombinakal and Chamundi. It is very much possible for urban areas to expand in time, and the choice of location of BMIC townships close to these forests indicate that there is of deforestation and denudation in these forests. An immediate impact is the fragmentation of wildlife habitats.

Badamanavarthi and Kalkere forests between Bangalore and Bannerghatta are amongst the best refuse that exists for birds, small mammals, amphibians and reptiles close to Bangalore. These are forests that have kindled the interest in many a budding birdwatcher, and never tired the seasoned one from returning for more. Far from even acknowledging the rich biodiversity of the area, the EIA provides a mocking “list of species” found in the region. These must be contrasted by well documented and publicly available lists of birds that have been sighted in some of these forests. As an instance the bird list for Bannerghatta National Park is annexed at Annexure G.

i) Threats to Wetlands: There are tens of wetlands (irrigation tanks, in particular) along the alignment for the BMIC Project that will either be grossly affected or exposed to risks. There is an admission in the EIA that several of the irrigation tanks will be sources of water for the project during construction. Considering that their storage is already very poor in most cases, the heavy extraction of this water for construction is bound to deplete the water availability for agriculture in the atchkat areas. There is also an admission by NICE that it would desilt upto 251 tanks along the alignment. This is to be done by using heavy machinery, and the silt recovered would be used in road works. As already explained earlier, the very commitment to desilt so many tanks in no time is ridiculous, considering the difficulty and expensiveness of such operations. Further, it is a well-known fact that this silt is extremely fertile and a highly contested source of nutrients for farmlands. It is a shame that such nutrient rich soil is to be used for road works, especially when it is not a good material for such construction! This is besides the attendant impacts on the tank-bed due to the use of heavy machinery in desilting leading to compaction of soil and poor seepage to recharge ground water aquifers. The impacts of interfering with social systems that support such desilting periodically have also not been considered.

Importantly, the fantastic diversity of waterfowl that is seen in several of these tanks has not even been given a cursory appraisal. Just to indicate how grossly inadequate the EIA is in this aspect, a list of waterfowl seen in Tailur tank, which will be destroyed by the Expressway, and the neighbouring Kokkarebellur area is listed at Annexure H.

j) Quarrying, Brickmaking and Landfilling: The proposed alignment for the BMIC Project passes through some dramatic rocky landscapes where the potential for quarrying granite is considered enormous. It is admitted in the EIA that the granite for all the construction work will come from this region. The extent and amount of quarrying work that will be induced to build an Expressway and Five Towns can thus be imagined! Again, the usual dismissal attitude of the adverse impacts on the surroundings continues to mark the discussion in the EIA. This even as there remain serious concerns whether GOK has considered the loss of revenue in allowing NICE to exploit the granite potential unbarred.

It should also be noted that brick-making would be another major activity related to construction. Top soil is invariably lost for this, and going from experiences in other areas of new urbanisation in Karnataka, farmers will be induced to sell the top soil of their lands at what seems attractive propositions in the short term. The permanent scars that this will leave on the landscape, the permanent loss of such areas to agriculture and the secondary displacement of farming families this will cause, has not been considered at all. Brick-making is also heavily reliant on fuel-wood, and considering the massive scale of construction activity proposed, there is little chance for the Forest Department or local villagers of protecting neighbouring forests from illegal extraction of wood.

Another serious secondary impact of this project to landforms is the idea of leveling the project area for the expressway and townships. Even considering that this region is largely consisting of plains, there exist in several locations deep valleys that is proposed to be filled in by soil brought from elsewhere. Thus, not only is the impact on the project land itself, but also be quite severe on neighbouring landscapes, especially the tens of hillocks scattered along the way. Mangalore City and surroundings has witnessed the scale of such destruction in the recent past and there is no guarantee that the same would not repeat here. Landslides and flashfloods are attendant risks of such major landform transformations that have not been considered in the EIA.

k) Overall Pollution from these facilities: Even a cursory appraisal of the nature of developments proposed in the townships would suggest that the volume and impact of pollution would be very high. It would thus be necessary to project various scales and scenarios of pollution, especially of air and water, describe specific areas of impact and offer most likely solutions. Nothing of this sort is even attempted in the EIA. What is instead provided are some ambient air, noise and water monitoring data that does little to project the likely impact scenario. Even this analysis is largely guided by the concerns of traffic on the Expressway and hardly any attention is paid to the more serious impacts from the townships and their various facilities.

Section V Analysis of what is contained in the MECON EIA of the BMIC Project

15. The Question of Alternatives:

a) Railway Corridor: It has been admitted in the EIA (Ch. 1: p4 of 36) that the existing single-track railway corridor between Bangalore and Mysore supports the movement of 10 passenger and 4 freight trains “in each direction”. It has also been admitted that over 10,000 passengers travel by train “in each direction” every day. Consequently, it could easily be assumed that the doubling of the tracks would allow for the movement of at least 40,000 passengers daily, with existing trains. This move would thus take half the pressure off the existing 80,000 trips daily from all modes of transport.

Deo & Associates Proposal: The Karnataka State Planning Board and National Institute of Advanced Studies commissioned a study by M/s Deo & Associates during September 1998[2] to understand the feasibility of developing the existing railway line into a “High Speed Double Track Electric Rail Link” between Bangalore and Mysore. This study has concluded that the track doubling and electrification can be achieved for a cost of “Rs. 500 crores for using existing alignment and Indian technology for doubling and electrification” and that “it can provide a service every 20 minutes during peak hours”. The report adds that such a service “can be expanded in future to 10 minutes interval.” It proposes that with “I hour travel and frequent service many will shift to Mysore… and work in Bangalore due to climate, culture, education and other factors”. Such a corridor, the report indicates, “can provide passenger journeys of about 60,000 per day”. Marginal land acquisition will be involved to accommodate “moderate changes at few places” to reduce rail distance to “about 120 kms. from 139 kms. at present”. A relevant extract from this study is annexed at Annexure I.

Southern Railways Proposal: Mr. N. Krithivasan, General Manager, Southern Railways, has categorically stated that the Railways is prepared to “cover 50% of the cost” of doubling the track between Bangalore and Mysore. He describes this project as a “definite reality” and proposes the estimate cost, including electrification, to be around Rs. 200 crores. He also has stated that the Railways have already committed to support the doubling of the railway track between Bangalore and Ramanagara, a distance of 60 kms. and that with the support of the GOK, the rest of the distance to Mysore could be easily covered. In this connection, he explains that HUDCO has come up with a proposal to develop colonies on land within a two kms. radius of the existing stations, and the amount generated from this could be channeled towards the track doubling cost. Even as the track itself would not require additional land acquisition, the colonies would come up in existing urban areas in stations along the railway corridor (6 points in all), not just Bangalore and Mysore, and therefore land was not a problem in most places. A copy of The Hindu article dated 01 June 2000 describing this proposal is annexed at Annexure J.

The EIA deliberately suppresses these viable alternatives, dismisses even the notion that these are feasible, without any reasonable justification, and proceeds to eulogise the heavily land and resource reliant BMIC Project as the only option for the future.

b) The Existing Road Network: There is an active proposal of the Public Works Department of GOK pending consideration of the World Bank for a loan amount equivalent to US$ 360 millions (approx. Rs. 1,700 crores) towards upgradation of the road network in Karnataka. The Karnataka Road Development Corporation has already come up with a scheme to upgrade the existing Sh-17, Bangalore-Mysore Road, to a two-lane carriage-way with motorable shoulder and adequate pavement. This would involve minimal land acquisition, ensure improved safety of travel as existing design problems that are causing accidents will be straightened out and the quality of the road will be vastly improved to cater to higher speeds and volumes. The World Bank is likely to clear this loan soon and a copy of the Bank document detailing loan features for the Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project ID No. P070421 is annexed at Annexure K.

c) The Combination of the Above alternatives: The cost of doubling of the railway corridor and development of the existing does not exceed Rs. 700 crores. Further it involves no need for extensive land acquisition resulting in displacement of rural communities who have no other resort but to end up in slums or slum-like urban settings. Considering these viable options, especially the desired reliance on public transport systems, it would seem probable that the existing pressure on Bangalore City in particular, and Mysore as well can be eased. The EIA does not reveal any of these existing GOK proposals at all.

It would be a travesty of our times if such clearly feasible, fully accessible and publicly manageable proposals were given short shrift. This only because GOK succumbed to the wild imaginations of an investor proposing the replication of the ugly urban sprawl typical of the US, in India, a country that can hardly afford such indulgences. The suppression of viable alternatives must be particularly studied in the context of this statement in the EIA, that “(b)y limiting access to the expressway and charging tolls, local traffic will be discouraged from using the Corridor” (Ch.2, p. 14 of 36). Question is for whom is the expressway being built then?

16. Colonisation by “urban forces” and the Question of Sovereignty: It has been admitted in the EIA that “India is a very large country, yet there is very little land for human settlement available at reasonable prices. Availability of efficient transportation can bring in more land to be colonised by urban forces and developed into satellite towns. Close collaboration between infrastructure providers and the real estate and construction industries can be the answer” (Ch. 2, p. 29 of 36). “Colonisation” as a concept of development, involves denial of sovereignty of those “colonised”. Clearly the concept here is to allow “urban forces” to take over the life and livelihood rights of the rural masses, a concept of development that violently agitates against the basic precepts of our Constitution and democracy. It has also been submitted in the EIA that “the governance to be used (in the new proposed townships) will be determined by a public process facilitated by the Consortium and the Government of Karnataka. The likely government structure will be conventional Municipal Council supported by a Urban Development Authority. Upon full transition to local governance, the Consortium will participate in governing responsibilities on the basis of land ownership, occupancy or other measures of local residency” (Ch. 2, p. 30 of 36). (Emphasis not in original)

Such a proposal is an extremely disturbing trend as:

a) It’s very conception is antithetical to the Constitutional 73^rd and 74^th Amendments, in as much as denying citizens the right to elect the local government. This is also in violation of the Representation of People’s Act. It is shocking that GOK is a party to such proposals that patently violate basic democratic features of our society, especially given that the “Consortium” (which it is claimed includes two foreign entities) “will participate in governing responsibilities”, and that without being elected!

b) The EIA further submits that keeping in view the need to retain such control by the Consortium as described above, “the GOK has recognised the need for….. a single planning authority for BMIC, …..termed as Comprehensive Planning Authority”. Powers have been assigned already to this Authority and “care is taken to include the entire village through which the Expressway passes so that the development activity for each village is comprehensive” (Ch. 2, p. 31 of 36). This is nothing short of snatching away of the fundamental rights of villages to elect their own Panchayats and manage their own affairs as enabled in the Panchayat Raj Act.

Clearly this must be the concept of “Singapore” that then Chief Minister of Karnataka Mr. Devegowda applauded when the visiting Singapore Prime Minister declared in a public forum that India could do with “less civil rights”. And perhaps the same “Singapore” that the present Chief Minister Mr. S. M. Krishna wants as a model of development for the Bangalore Mysore Corridor. Such, as is also being experimented in the Malaysian State of Johor. Where the “Johor State Government will acquire and cede land to the Consortium (there), which in turn will develop the primary infrastructure for a new township on a 10,291 ha site” that will cover the cost of financing “land acquisition, the construction of bridges and expressways”. This is the only other instance of the BMIC model of development that the EIA itself quotes, and thus Karnataka and Johor could together take the pride of place in the world for a new form of colonisation, by the “urban forces”!

The concept of “colonisation” and denial of fundamental rights is thus being institutionalised by the participation of GOK, a first such instance in the entire country. Other examples cited from within India, are projects involving road development only, and thus cannot form any basis of comparison to the massive BMIC Project.

17. A Real Estate Scam?

a) Admittedly, a Real Estate development: C B Richard Ellis, a US real estate developer that is facing major problems resulting in layoffs and possible takeover, is the consultant to NICE providing “development strategy” to the BMIC Project. In an interview with Business Standard dated 20 January 2000 (copy annexed at Annexure L) Anshuman Magazine, South Asia Managing Director of Richard Ellis claims that “for the first time in India, an infrastructure project is cross-subsidised by a real estate component during the capital intensive stages of the project. The real estate component will positively influence the project cash flows, thus making the venture financially viable.” It is further stated that “the BMIC Project would act as a role model for all future infrastructure projects with long gestation periods, where associated real estate would be used as an asset base to cross-subsidise the funding of the project”.

b) Government Land Transferred under Mysterious Circumstances: The GOK has acted to deliver such a concept for the first time in India by concluding a Framework Agreement with NICE on 3^rd April 1997, on the basis of land acquisition process for the project that has been initiated for over 21,000 acres. An article in The New Indian Express dated 5^th May 2001(annexed at Annexure M) reveals now that “the transfer of Government land was made under mysterious circumstances”.

It claims that “according to highly placed sources, the present Government was worried about the Order issued by its predecessor in favour of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) for the use of BMIC, transferring about 5,000 acres of Government land. The GO was issued on October 7, 1999, when the results of the General Elections to the State Assembly and Parliament were coming out. The then ruling Janata Dal Government, headed by J H Patel was trailing in the election and the Congress was all set to form the Government. In one of the hurried orders, the then ruling Government had issued the GO before bowing out of office”.

Secondly, “the land required for BMIC project was acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act and the acquired land was with Revenue Department. However, the GO was issued and signed by the Under Secretary of Public Works Department. The then Government had used the loop hole that PWD was involved with Infrastructure Development of the State and the GO was issued”. Besides this, “the GO had the list of land allotted in each village along the proposed corridor. However, the survey numbers and the extent of land allotted to NICE in each survey numbers have (not) been mentioned in the list”. Yet, “there was no clear demarcation of extent of land available. No survey or ‘panchanama’ was made in this connection to say which part of the survey number was allotted for BMIC project. Though the GO state that about 5,000 acres of land was being handed over to the NICE, the list of allotment shows that about 6,000 acres would handed over for BMIC Project”. The transfer of land in favour of NICE would be “for the period of 40 years” and “the lease rental of the land would be Rs. 10 per acre pre annum”.

These are clearly scandalous revelations, that have perhaps not got the attention they deserve, due to greater scandals that have been perpetrated on the people of this country in recent times. However, it has to be a cause of concern for agencies reviewing the project from the environmental clearance angle, as:

· The Government land includes forest land, which can only be reassigned for non-forestry purposes by the Ministry of Environment and Forests

· If this is the situation in acquiring Government land, where it is claimed there is no displacement of any sort whatsoever, then the question remains what of those areas that are under private control and notified for acquisition. If no ‘panchanama’ has been conducted for government land, then the consequences of the same practice being adopted for private lands could result in disastrous consequences, as it would mean that we still do not know how many families will be affected by the project directly and indirectly.

18. Resettlement and Rehabilitation Report of MECON: In the context of this alleged real estate scam must be viewed the results of the “Resettlement and Rehabilitation Report” prepared by MECON for NICE. It must be stated at the outset that NICE has absolutely no responsibility towards resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced. It pays a certain amount of money to KIADB for land, and there ceases its responsibility. Quite obviously this payment would be based on the Baseline socio-economic survey conducted by MECON for NICE.

We requested a competent statistician, Dr. Lakshmi Nilakantan, to review this study for us, and her comments are annexed at Annexure N.

19. BMIC Project Cost:

In fundamental violation of the EIA Notification, the EIA submits only the cost of developing the Expressway as Rs. 17,295 million (1999 estimate), up by 31% from the previous estimate of Rs. 13,187 million. No reference is ever made to the costs of developing the townships, which will consume 2/3ds of the land that is to be acquired and almost all of the water (Ch. 2, p. 33 of 36). In such context, it would be impossible for the requisite cess charges to be fixed for the project, as is normally the case in any project clearance.

20. No Disaster Management Plan:

The EIA has absolutely no reference to a disaster situation and contains no disaster management plan. A four page Environmental Management Plan is offered that contains little more than the promise of ambient air quality monitoring and minimal civil engineering precautions. The KSPCB NOC has done little to check such shuffling.

21. In summary:

Given the shoddy quality of the information based on which NOC has been granted by KSPCB and application for grant of environmental clearance is awaited, it should be quite nigh impossible for the Ministry of Environment and Forests to form any reasonable estimation of the project’s impacts. Quite clearly this calls for an independent assessment of the impacts, including even a site visit by the Expert Committee. Unless such efforts are initiated, the project is liable to be rejected as being in fundamental violation of the EIA Notification and standards prescribed for Environment Impact Assessment.

Leo F. Saldanha

Coordinator

Environment Support Group

Endorsed by:

Maj. General S.G.Vombatkere, VSM (Retd) S. Sridhar

M.E.(Struct.),Ph.D(I.I.T),F.I.E.(India),C.Eng INCERT

Convenor, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 10 Sirur Park B Street

475, 7^th Main Road Vijayanagar 1^st Stage Sheshadripuram

MYSORE – 570 017 Bangalore 560 020

Tel: 91-821-515187/515150 Tel: 91-80-3364142

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

[1] It must be inquired if SAB Engineering and Construction Inc. and SAB International are the same entity. If so, why do they have two different names? And how has this been allowed to pass so far?

[2] The Bangalore-Mysore Corridor: A Feasibility Proposal, Technical, Economic and Social Potential, Development Aimed Around a High Speed Double Track Electric Rail Link; Prepared for The State Planning Board, Government of Karnataka and National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, by Deo & Associates, Pune; 25 September 1998.