Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Mumbai oil spill: threat to marine life, coast; Authorities shrug off questions about liability

Two cargo ships collided off the Mumbai coast on August 7 causing an oil spill that spread quickly through Maharashtra's coastline. MSC Chitra ruptured its tank when it hit incoming MV Khalijia and ran aground at Colaba, near Prongs Reef Lighthouse. The vessel contained about 1,200 tonnes of fuel oil in its tanks of which 800 tonnes spilled into the Arabian Sea before the leaks could be plugged two days later.

The collision damaged Khalijia's prows. Chitra tilted precariously at a 75o angle which caused 400 containers on its deck to fall off and float in the sea. Some of these containers had toxic organophosphate pesticides (See Also: Dangerous cargo).

Mangroves wear black slick

In scale, the spill was much smaller than the one in the Gulf of Mexico in April. But it is proving a major threat to the marine ecology of the area and the coast. "Entire mangroves in our area turned black. It was a scary sight," said Dipesh Khattu, a teenager from Pirwadi village in Uran taluka of Raigad, one of the affected districts about 100 km from Mumbai. But the extent of the damage would be known only after the oil spill's environmental impact is assessed.

The Union environment ministry has hired the services of two research institutes—the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (neeri) in Nagpur and the National Institute of Oceanography at Goa—to assess the impact of the spill. The Indian Oil Corporation will study the marine life in the affected areas.

Initial observations by non-profit Bombay Natural History Society (bnhs), conducting its own ecological assessment study, indicate the slick has spread to the beaches in Alibaug in Raigad, 108 km from Mumbai. Deepak Apte, assistant director of bnhs, said two scientists groups from the organization would look into how the mangroves have been damaged and the impact of the oil on the ecosystems. The non-profit will complete its rapid assessment study in three months.

Ecologists said the picture is grim. "The oil spill will affect fish species; many of them breed in mangroves. The chemicals sprayed to disperse the oil too would affect the marine ecology," said B F Chhapgar, a marine biologist. "The chemical dispersants break the oil into small droplets which then settle at the bottom of the sea and affect marine life," he explained. Chhapgar also expressed concern over the threat posed by the chemical containers still afloat in the sea. If the pesticides leak, marine animals would be severely impacted, he said.

Oil spill or accidental discharge?

The oil spill caught the government agencies unaware. The state pollution control board (spcb), the state environment department and the port authorities could provide no details as to who was liable. "We are dealing with the present incident not as an oil spill but as an accidental discharge as defined in the Environment Protection Act (epa) of 1986. There is no law covering oil spill as such and the consequential environmental damage," said Y B Sontakke, regional officer of spcb stationed in Mumbai. So, the fir was filed against the companies under epa and the Indian Penal Code sections relating to rash navigation (Section 280) and endangering life of others (Section 336).

The agencies passed the buck to each other when asked about fixing liability and responsibility. Though the Maharashtra spcb has released image80 lakh towards initial clean-up operation, its officials claimed it was not the responsibility of the board to fund the cleaning.

Minister of state for environment Jairam Ramesh informed the Rajya Sabha that both shipping companies would be made to pay the clean-up cost. But it is not clear how they would be made to pay since the ships bear foreign registration; Chitra is registered in Panama while Khalijia is registered in St Kitts. Liability is covered by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage of 2001, but India is not a signatory to it. (See Also: India pledges to sign Bunker Convention after the spill).

State environment secretary Valsa R Nair Singh said a maritime lawyer, hired by directorate general (DG) for shipping at Mumbai, would conduct negotiations with the polluters for compensating all claims. When contacted, joint director general of shipping, Satish Agnihotri, denied this. "DG-Shipping will not make claims for any other agency. All concerned agencies would make separate compensation claims," Agnihotri said, refusing to comment on liability.

Contingency plan only on paper

Only one document deals with the subject—the National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan of 1996 (See Also: What the disaster plan says). The document was issued by the Ministry of Defence in 1996; it was last updated in March 2006. The nos-dcp, as the plan is commonly known, gives the Indian Coast Guard the mandate to co-ordinate with state departments, ministries, port authorities and environmental agencies to assist in oil spill cleaning operations.

It mandates that all major ports in India should have basic, minimum equipments, like inflatable booms and oil skimmers, to tackle oil spill. It also specifically states that the Mumbai Port Trust should have a tier-I response system, capable of handling oil spills up to 700 tonnes. The Mumbai oil spill exposed lack of preparedness of the port trust; it could provide no help to the Coast Guard. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust that shares the Mumbai port's navigational channel, was of no help either.

"Timely action would have helped reduce the impact of oil spill," said Baban Ingole, senior scientist with National Institute of Oceanography.

—with inputs from Rajil Menon

See Also:

* Dangerous cargo
MSC Chitra, a Panama registered cargo ship, was loaded with 1,219 containers of which 31 contained hazardous material—six had organophosphate pesticides and the remaining contained sodium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide. It is not certain if the containers that fell into the sea have ruptured and leaked.

* What the disaster plan says
The National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (nos-dcp) of 2006 allocates functional responsibilities to various ministries and departments for oil spill response in the maritime zones of India. The Director General Coast Guard is designated the Central Coordinating Authority (cca) to implement the plan. The nos-dcp 2006 provisions state:

* State pollution control boards will maintain adequate quantity of basic pollution response equipment like deflective booms, fence booms and spray equipments along with specialized equipment for beach protection and shoreline clean-up

* The Directorate General of Shipping is responsible for all negotiations with the vessel, cargo owners and insurers; and will also conduct all negotiations regarding compensation and indemnification. It will take administrative and legal action for processing claims compiled by the Coast Guard and other agencies relating to any other oil pollution incidents

* Major ports will be the in-charge of the overall coordination of actions in the area within port limits as regards anti-oil pollution. The major port authority concerned to arrange for the preparation of local contingency plan in consultation with Coast Guard, regional headquarters

* Ports to identify suitable sea going tugs, surface craft on which dispersant spraying equipment can be mounted and which can be used for rigging the boom

* Port authorities to arrange for training of personnel expected to be engaged in cleaning operations. They have to arrange periodical exercise to keep equipment and personnel in readiness for oil spill response operations

* India pledges to sign Bunker Convention after the spill
The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 or Bunker Convention is meant to ensure prompt and effective compensation to persons who suffer damage caused by oil spill, when carried as fuel in ships' bunkers. The convention came into force in November 2008, but India is still not a signatory to it.

The treaty applies to damage caused on the territory, including the territorial sea and in exclusive economic zones. It applies to ships of over 1,000 tonnes gross weight. Such ships are required to carry on board a certificate saying the ship has insurance or other financial security, such as the guarantee of a bank or similar financial institution, to cover the liability for pollution damage. It provides a free-standing instrument covering pollution damage only.

Pollution damage covers loss or damage caused outside the ship by contamination resulting from the escape or discharge of bunker oil from the ship. It is only now, post August 7, that the Indian government has pledged to become a signatory of the Bunker Convention. Countries already party to the treaty include Bahamas, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Sierra Leone, Singapore and the uk.

Author(s): Reshma Jathar
Issue: Aug 27, 2010

Monday, June 7, 2010

Do we ‘have to’ have pesticide plants?

No, it’s not an emotional outburst though reading newspapers has left me upset today. But, I want you to start thinking from this basic question.

It is about the verdict of June 7 by the Bhopal court in the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy. All the seven convicts in the BGT have been sentenced to two years in jail and a fine of Rs 1 lakh each and, got bail for a surety of Rs 25,000 each. The Union Carbide India Ltd. has been found guilty and is fined of Rs 5 lakh for the industrial disaster. And, that’s all! While, the disaster claimed more than 15,000 lives and affected the health of about 5 lakh people in varying degrees. The BGT happened in December 1984 and the verdict is come after 26 years!

There could be a more ‘practical’ argument that why not insist on strengthening the legal framework to deal efficiently with industrial disasters than questioning the ‘so called’ obvious existence of pesticide plants? But, I think that’s mitigation with the underlying assumption that we’ll let it happen first and then find the ways to deal with it. And, till the time we reach the right solutions let the victims (that is always a common man!) pay the cost of development. Why in the name of development we often come up with things that have high costs over benefits? And, the costs are always to be paid by ‘them’!

There is another common argument in favour of modern agricultural (mono-cultural?!) technologies that we do need them to acquire ‘food security’. But, does the use of pesticides really provide it? Where?
Rather it is seen that more the cash crops and more the consequent use of pesticides, more is the number of farmers’ suicides… look at cotton farming in Vidarbha . On the other hand, we do have traditional and natural ways of farming. A comprehensive research into the traditional farming systems can help achieve food security with ‘diversity’ as a value addition! And, that needs no chemical pesticides.

Now, the last question that will lead you to the answer of the first one… Will you prefer chemical-free or chemical-loaded food on your own platter?


Saturday, April 17, 2010

Konkan village rejects mining plan

Officials say villagers are not final arbiters

Asaniye may share the fate of Redi village above where people are falling ill

ASANIYE is a small village on the Konkan coast in Maharashtra, surrounded by thick forests of the Western Ghats. Residents here fear lifestyle change and loss of green cover once iron ore mining operations begin.

In 2007, the Maharashtra government leased 437 hectares in the village in Sawantwadi tehsil to Dempo, a firm from Goa. The government is now seeking villagers’ approval to obtain clearances from the Centre. A public hearing held in the village on December 5, 2009, was called off midway after villagers pointed out anomalies in the rapid environmental impact assessment (EIA) report prepared by a Dempo consultant.

Villagers, led by Vaishali Patil of non-profit Ankur Trust, said the rapid EIA did not mention the presence of 65 perennial water streams around the village and a sacred mangrove.

The public hearing was called again on March 20, but was cancelled as the election code of conduct was in force. The village gathering then passed a resolution rejecting the mining proposal. The state pollution control board has rescheduled the hearing for April 22.

Deputy collector Dilip Pandhar-patte said villagers’ views alone would not decide the project. “If minerals are there, mining will take place as a matter of policy,” he said adding villagers’ views would be conveyed to the Centre. Dempo said it would start mining as soon as it obtains mandatory clearances. The company claimed it would employ 222 of the 1,234 persons in the village once the mines start operating fully.

Villagers who have organized themselves under the Mining-Virodhi Kruti Sangharsh Samiti said they don’t need the jobs. Sandeep Sawant, secretary of the Samiti, said the village generates about Rs 4.5 crore from its orchards. “If mining is allowed, we will be affected by deforestation, mining waste and water shortage,” said Sawant.

Villagers said their fate would be the same as that of Redi village in nearby Vengurla tehsil where mining firms have been operating for the past 40 years. A third of the 8,563 villagers of Redi are suffering from respiratory illnesses according to a study in 2008-2009 by the local Redkar charitable hospital. Redi villagers said they have very little water now and their plantations stand destroyed.

One of the firms operating in Redi, New India Mining Corporation, denied mining was causing health problems. The other firm, Infrastructure and Logistic Ltd of the Fomento group, demanded evidence linking mining with respiratory problems and threatened legal action against Down To Earth.

Nana Kolte, chairperson of the anti-mining front, who used to work as a panchayat worker in Redi said, “I don’t want my village to go through the same experience as that village.”

Reshma Jathar, DTE April 2010

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Are we ever going to take it seriously?

Environment & Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh’s moratorium on Bt Brinjal was criticized by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, S&T Minister Prithviraj Chavan and HRD Minister Kapil Sibal. A few months ago, Ramesh’s ministry was criticized by Maharashtra state government for not giving clearances to some power projects proposed in the close vicinity of the protected areas of Melghat, Chandoli and Koyana. Recently, at a conference in Mumbai, state forest minister Patangrao Kadam insisted only on clearances and funds. And now Minister of Road Transport and Highways Kamal Nath has asked Prime Minister to intervene and “ensure” that the environment ministry "fast-track" clearances to the key highway projects . A news report has claimed that Kamal Nath’s letter to PM has mentioned about three projects in Maharashtra and at least four in Assam, of which one passes through the Pench National Park in MP.
Well, are we ever going to take environment ministry seriously? are we ever going to get realised that it is and if not has to be made much more than the clearance giving authority?

- Reshma