Greenpeace EIA anaylsis and the facts

Comparison of the Greenpeace Critique of the EIA and the Facts

S.No.	As per the Greenpeace critique of the EIA	Facts
1	“The total “land take” is estimated at 9,200 acres exclusive of the intertidal area proposed, according to the EIA.”	The total “land take” for the port is 912 acres and 2033 acres for the rail road corridor
2	“ This Assessment has been used as the basis for the Orissa Pollution Control Board issuing a No Objection Certificate to the proposed development. On the Same basis, the Prinicipal Secretary, Environment and Forest to the Government of Orissa has given the project Environmental Clearance	The Environment Clearance was granted by the Ministry Of Surface Transport (the competent authority)
3	“Accordingly, it is questionably as to whether a study which considers in detail only issues within a 10 km radius of the proposed development with more general treatment over a 20km radius is sufficient to capture the full impacts likely to flow from the development”	The study area of 25 km radius around the port expansion of Dhamra port has been considered as the general study area. An area of 5 km on either side of the proposed rail alignment from Dhamra to Bhadrak has been considered separately for study purpose
4	“Moreover, The EIA considers two options for the port’s location, one on the Kanika Sands itself, and the other on the mainland, before discarding the mainland option in favour of Kanika Sands. The EIA then goes on to evaluate impacts on the basis of the port location on Kanika Sands. However, the project as it is currently being implemented locates the port on the mainland and not Kanika Sands.”	The EIA clearance is an elaborate process, which is not based on the submission of a single document namely the EIA report. The queries raised by Greenpeace regarding the intended location of the port (as mentioned in the EIA report -original submission, being Kanika Sands are in fact similar to the ones asked by the Empowered Committee of Environmental Clearances (ECEC) for port projects. Subsequently, addenda to the original EIA report were submitted in December 1998. In fact Kanika sands was not chosen as the site, because of its vicinity to Gahirmatha WLS and also would have resulted in large-scale decimation of the mangroves in Kanika Sands.