• Sepa clueless?

KARACHI: The Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) went ahead with another public hearing on Wednesday, ignoring calls for transparency and access to complete information on an industrial project planned to be built in the Gadap Town area.

How much due lawful process was followed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report approval process was evident from Sepa officials’ ignorance when they were repeatedly asked whether the project area was a notified industrial zone.

The hearing pertained to the EIA report of an automobile assembling plant proposed by Pak-China Motors Private Limited. The EIA was conducted by Global Environmental Management Services (GEMS).

This was the second time within two days that the environmental watchdog had organised a public hearing with negligible public participation.

Clause 3, Section 17, of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act 2014 states: “Every review of an environmental impact assessment shall be carried out with public participation and, subject to the provisions of this act, after full disclosure of the particulars of the project.”

Sepa clueless?

Responding to repeated queries over the status of the project area, Sepa officials came up with confused statements in an attempt to justify their action of bringing the project for a public hearing. While S.M. Yahya, the additional director general of Sepa, explicitly told the audience that the agency would consult industries and the commerce department over its status, another official had something different to say.

“To our understanding, the project area is very much industrial. A number of poultry farms and hatcheries are operating there with a plant for soft drinks,” he said.

Mr Yahya had earlier said: “We came to know this today [that the project area is not a notified industrial zone] and we will [further] ask the relevant department [about it].”

Citizens object to the construction of an industrial project in a residential area

The conflicting statements from Sepa came after senior engineer A.A. Chandani in attendance objected to the construction of an industrial project in a residential area.

“The project area is not a notified industrial zone. It would be an illegal venture [if Sepa allows its construction in a residential area]. How many people sitting in the audience know this?” Mr Chandani asked, calling upon Sepa to meet the legal requirements of the EIA in letter and spirit.

He also criticised the composition of Sepa’s expert committee, the last stage for EIA report review on the basis of which the agency decides to accord approval to a project.

“We don’t know who are invited for comments in that committee which should consist of experts who have a practical body of knowledge,” he said.

Endorsing his comments, Zubair Ahmed Abro, a lawyer specialising in environmental issues, pointed out that Sepa by admitting its ignorance about the status of the project area had not followed Clause 1, Section 10, of the Sepa regulations 2014 under which the agency was required to carry out preliminary scrutiny.

“Within 15 days of filing of initial environmental examination (IEE), environmental check list or EIA report, the agency shall (a) confirm that the IEE or EIA or environmental checklist is complete for purpose of initiation of review process or require the proponent to submit such additional information as may be specified or return the IEE or EIA or environmental checklist to the proponent for revision, clearly listing the points requiring further study and discussion,” the clause states.

He also criticised Sepa’s decision to hold the hearing despite the fact that the EIA report was incomplete as it did not carry no objection certificates from the relevant departments — another mandatory requirement under the law — for instance from the industries and commerce department and the Malir Development Authority, the land owning department.

“Every IEE and EIA shall be accompanied by (a) an application in the form prescribed in Schedule-V (b) copy of receipt showing payment of review fee (c) no objection certificates from relevant departments in case of an EIA report (d) environmental checklist as per its guidelines,” says Clause 2, Section 9 of the Sepa regulations 2014.

By allowing the project proponent to bring an incomplete EIA report, Mr Abro said, Sepa had deprived the few people representing the public in the hearing of their right to complete information, which was their fundamental constitutional right.

On the scant public participation in the programme, Mr Abro said: “If you exclude the representation of project proponent, project consultants and Sepa in this programme, there are hardly four people representing the public here. Why couldn’t this public hearing be held after Ramazan that would have ensured more participation from the public and fulfilled an important legal requirement?”

Surprisingly, while Sindh Madressatul Islam University located in Saddar was included in the EIA stakeholder consultation meetings and the EIA report talks about it, the Baqai Medical University and Hospital located adjacent to the project site had no mention in the EIA report.

When this point was raised, Saleem-uz-Zaman, representing GEMS, said the EIA team went to the Baqai University thrice while the EIA was being carried out but “there was no response” from them.

On air quality concerns, he argued that the “entire system would be enclosed and there was no threat to the environment”.

Answering a question about the quantity of total waste and its disposal, it was stated that the matter would be looked into once the project became operational.

Earlier, a detailed presentation on the project was given by Jibran Khalid of GEMS, according to which the automobile plant will initially assemble diesel trucks for which parts will be imported from China.

Later, the plant will assemble 1,000cc passenger cars and sports utility vehicles within the next three to five years. The total annual mixed production capacity of the plant will be 10,000 units.

The approximate area of the proposed plant is 37 acres with initial construction on 29,000 square metres covered area. The project was declared ‘safe’ by the EIA consultants if mitigation measures suggested in the report were followed.

Saquib Ejaz Hussain, an air quality expert who could not attend the public hearing as he was in Islamabad, shared with Dawn his concerns over the project.

“The EIA study in its present form does not address major environmental issues emerging from a vehicle assembly and its associated processes which include use of highly hazardous substances.

“The project is located in the midst of a sensitive area, including housing societies, and can pose a serious environmental/health risk. The site is not suitable for establishing such a large-scale industrial activity. In addition, the proposed vehicle assembly plant structures must be carefully designed to respond to seismic considerations of the area,” he said.

Published in Dawn, June 22nd, 2017