KARACHI: The Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) once again violated its own rules on Thursday when it held a public hearing on a project whose Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report lacked a mandatory no-objection certificate (NOC) from a key government department, in this case the forest department.

Moreover, no forest department official had been invited to the public hearing so that people in attendance could directly communicate their reservations to the department concerned over the destruction of 889 mangroves the proposed project entailed.

“Every Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Impact Assessment shall be accompanied by no-objection certificates from relevant departments in case of an EIA report,” says Section 9 of Sepa regulations 2014.

The entire mangrove cover in the province was declared protected in Dec 2010. Besides, the country is signatory to the Sustainable Development Goals; SDG 14 states that it is required to take measures for marine coastal ecosystems’ conservation and protection.

Project entails destruction of over 800 mangroves

It also came as a shock to the participants that the environmental watchdog had held the public hearing of a project awaiting final decision on its site.

Titled LNG import terminal II, the project proposed by Pakistan Gas Port Limited (PGPL) is planned in the Chara Chan Waddio creek in the Port Qasim area. The project’s EIA has been conducted by Global Environmental Management Services (GEMS).

It came to light during the discussion that as per international practice a final decision on the LNG terminal site is taken on the basis of studies, an important one is a quantitative risk assessment (QRA), which is mandatory at least under the Port Qasim Authority regulations.

No QRA study on the proposed project, however, was shared with the audience during the programme. When this point was raised, the project proponent represented by senior programme manager Nasir Gill explained that the relevant study had been completed by a consultant company hired by PGPL but its findings were awaited.

‘Risk to population’

Sharing his concerns, Saquib Ejaz Hussain, an environmental consultant who has been part of quite a few studies involving LNG terminals, said that the proposed terminal had been planned very close to the first terminal that could pose serious risk to human population and property.

“The project proponent has proposed a distance of 300 meters between the two LNG terminals, which is a serious safety risk and doesn’t comply with international standards,” he said.

According to him, a cumulative QRA study of the proposed LNG terminals in the Chara Chan Waddio channel was conducted by an Italian firm in 2017 in which it categorically stated that the minimum safety distance of 650m should be maintained if a new terminal was built in this particular creek.

Citing the Sandia National laboratories (US) report on large liquefied natural gas spillover, he said it had defined outer limits of three hazard zones. “The Zone 1 has a limit of 500m, the Zone 2 of 1,600m and Zone 3 of 3,500m. Within Zone 1, the thermal radiation can cause serious injuries or significant damage to structures. The EIA has no mention of this important report, which is a major deficiency,” he said.

In the absence of a QRA study, he pointed out, the justification of the site presented in the EIA report was questionable and Sepa should have returned the document to the proponents instead of calling a public hearing on a “flawed document”.

“If the safety aspects are not properly studied, then this project may result in a major catastrophe in the event of a worst case scenario,” he warned.

He also asked whether Sepa would call another public hearing when the QRA report was received and the project site was finally decided.

The EIA project consultants represented by Saleem-uz-Zaman and Gibran Khalid argued that their team had suggested three sites for the project and the EIA report covered all safety concerns.

Threat to biodiversity

Dr Munawar Saleem of the National Institute of Oceanography spoke about the threats the project posed to marine biodiversity.

“There will be dredging in a big way at the site which will have serious impact on marine flora and fauna. It would have been better if the audience was educated about the environmental impacts documented during the construction of terminal 1,” he said, suggesting a body at Port Qasim to monitor development projects, study their environmental impacts, if any, and recommend measures to mitigate them.

Jameel Junejo representing the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) said that though their organisation was a major stakeholder in the project to be built in an area surrounded by fishermen communities, no consultation was carried out with it.

“Promises of mangrove plantation after their destruction are often eyewash. There was no mention of the project’s impact on the fish in the EIA report,” he said.

Members of the EIA team responded to this concern by arguing that there were successful stories of mangrove plantation in Pakistan and the same would be followed in the case of this project. Decline in fish catch was a global trend, it was said.

Rafiul Haq, a senior ecologist, and Dr Shahid Amjad with expertise in oceanography, called for effective post EIA-monitoring of the project.

Responding to some queries, Sepa official Imran Sabir said: “A QRA study is not our (Sepa’s) requirement. The forest department is independent and will take notice (of the project) at its own time.”

Earlier, a detailed presentation was given on the project according to which the LNG was a safe fuel and posed no threat to environment and marine fauna. The proposed project would meet gas shortfall in the country, it was stated.

Under the project, 4.5 million tonnes of LNG would be imported annually. A 600m long pipeline that would pass through mangroves is also part of the project.

It was stated that if project activities were undertaken as described in this EIA and the recommended mitigation measures along with environmental management plan was adopted, the proposed LNG terminal would not result in any long-term impacts on the local community as well as on the physical and biological environment of the proposed project area.

Over the past few days, Sepa has held at least two public hearings with negligible public participation, which is a violation of its rules.

Published in Dawn, June 23rd, 2017

Opinion

Editorial

‘Source of terror’
Updated 29 Mar, 2024

‘Source of terror’

It is clear that going after militant groups inside Afghanistan unilaterally presents its own set of difficulties.
Chipping in
29 Mar, 2024

Chipping in

FEDERAL infrastructure development schemes are located in the provinces. Most such projects — for instance,...
Toxic emitters
29 Mar, 2024

Toxic emitters

IT is concerning to note that dozens of industries have been violating environmental laws in and around Islamabad....
Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...