APPROVAL OF SH. MATHIKOMANDOO RECLAMATION EIA AND THE FIRST EIA ADDENDUM UNDERMINES THE EIA REGULATION 2012
MTCC has recently commenced the land reclamation of Sh. Mathikomandoo after obtaining the required approvals from EPA. However, in giving environmental clearance for this project, it is evident that EPA has compromised the general standard it maintains in approving EIA reports.
First and foremost, the initial EIA report approved for the project has a number of technical issues in it. This has been highlighted in an ‘expert review’ published in local media. The issues include insufficient project justification and filed surveys undertaken for the project. Especially, the wave dynamics around the island have not been surveyed which is going to have a huge direct impact on the newly reclaimed land and the existing coastal features in Komandoo. As per the EIA report, an addendum report will be made to source sand from an area north of Komandoo.
However, the Mathikomandoo reclamation project was commenced by sourcing sand from an area in Raa atoll. As per the land reclamation EIA of R.Ungoofaaru, this area has been surveyed in April and May 2021. An EIA addendum report which does not meet the standards of such reports was approved by EPA to begin the dredging component of the project.
The EIA addendum report approved for sourcing sand from Raa Atoll is just a 30-page monotonous document whose 80% of the content was just referenced back to R. Ungoofaaru land reclamation EIA. No additional study was undertaken for the report. Since the field surveys for Ungoofaaru EIA were carried out in April and May 2021, an EIA addendum report cannot be merely based on these surveys without undertaking further field surveys. Additionally, the report clearly showed that no stakeholder consultation was carried out as stated in ToR.
EIA report approval and rejection is based on EIA regulation 2012 and the following amendments to the regulation. Hence, even if it is EPA, they cannot approve an EIA report that does not satisfy the regulatory terms stated under the regulation. Under section 12, article12a of EIA regulation 2012, it is clearly stated that any EIA report made should be in accordance with the approved ToR for that report. Hence, EPA has no legal right to approve any EIA report that does not fulfill the terms highlighted in ToR. It is very clear that the initial EIA report and EIA addendum report made for Mathikomandoo reclamation do not fulfill the terms highlighted under the ToR of these reports. Hence, their approval by EPA goes against the EIA regulation 2012, clause 5 of Environmental Protection and Preservation Act of the Maldives (Law No. 4/93).
According to the section 3 and 4 of EIA regulation 2012 and the following amendment 5 of the regulation, an EIA report can either be approved, or requested to provide additional information to complete the report based on the approved ToR and relevant regulations or totally rejected. The regulation does not permit any form of conditional EIA approval to complete what has been stated in the ToR. This is totally against the EIA regulation 2012, and the following amendments.
EIA addendum report of Mathikomandoo was given a conditional approval, requesting to undertake consultation with Raa Atoll Council which was a requirement of the ToR. The physical work started without completing the stakeholder consultation with Raa Atoll Council as stated under the Decentralization Act.
With deep concern and regret we note that the whole process of EIA approval for the land reclamation of Mathikomandoo has undermined the EIA regulation 2012 and the general standard procedure followed by EIA in such process.
Comments